My Beauty Best Teacher

There are many reasons other than philosophical (see my post Fascism Healthcare) for me opposing the Obamacare legislation that is still moving through Congress. It is not yet a forgone conclusion that it will pass, and it is the most important piece of legislation moving through Congress right now, so indulge me a bit more while I lay out more reasons why you and I need to oppose this legislation.

President Barack Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright opposes this legislation due to what it doesn't do, but I oppose this legislation for what it does do- it raises taxes, hurts employers who provide healthcare coverage right now for their employees, and will cost national and state governments a lot of money that they don't have.

In the Senate version (and probably in the final version) is a new tax on employers. Called by some the "Cadillac tax", it is a tax increase of 40 percent annually on employer-sponsored insurance policies that many businesses provide. According to the White House, it is a tax increase of over $150 billion that families and employers would have to pay for in order to provide for Obamacare- which is to limit competition, increase regulation, raise costs, employ more bureaucrats, and provide more welfare. Raising taxes on families and employers will not help our nation and led our nation forward.

Obamacare will also hurt employers who provide healthcare coverage right now to their employees. Obama and Pelosi attempted to play off one class against another and tax the rich to distribute that money to the poor, but their legislation is so bad that it ended up taxing the middle class and labor unions too. According to the AFL-CIO, 31 million insured employees are going to be hit by increased taxes by Obamacare, including members of labor unions like the UAW or MEA. As the president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, says "This (healthcare bill) is a policy designed to benefit the elites."

Finally, Obamacare will cost government a lot of money. Most people are focusing on the cost to the national government (which will be 1 trillion dollars after taxing for 10 years and providing service for 6), but I am again (see my earlier post Healthcare Bill Makes States Fund Expanded Medicaid and Destroys Michigan's State Budget) going to point out that states are going to be paying a lot of money as well- money that they don't have. According to top state economists, next year's budget for the government of the State of Michigan will likely fall about $1.6 billion short. Last year Michigan made significant cuts to college grants, Medicaid reimbursements, Corrections and local municipalities, and is looking at serious cuts across the board- before Obamacare passes. After Obamacare passes, Medicaid rolls will expand, the state will have to match those grants, and it will cost a lot more money. These policies are not made in a vacuum folks- if Obamacare passes, hundreds of teachers around the state will be let go as a result- their is only so much money to go around.

Obamacare raises taxes, hurts employers who provide healthcare coverage right now for their employees, and will cost national and state governments a lot of money that they don't have- and that is why I oppose it.

I'm going to come back to this post several times in the future, because there is a lot of gold to mine in this debate. Here are my running thoughts- I'll expand on some of these later.

First, while I was watching the pre-debate on ABC, as they went through the history/biography of both candidates, I thought to myself how surprising it is that this election is even a contest. McCain is a true American hero- a war hero who has been at the forefront of legislation for 20 years, has few scandals, and is a decent person, running against Obama, who is... what? A world traveler? A community organizer? Black? I don't understand how Obama could win- it's like everything our country has been about for the last several hundred years is all being forgotten. Our Founding Fathers would not be proud of us if Obama won. For a more comical take on this, see this earlier 'joke' I posted on this idea.

Economic Plan- Obama. Obama talked about putting forward a series of proposals to solve the economic crisis. Did he actually do those things? To whom? Was it in the form of legislation, or just talk? I don't recall this ever coming up in the news- if you brag about this sort of thing, shouldn't it be well-known? Obama then summed up the issues facing us. He emphasized that things are really bad right now and getting worse.

Economic Plan- McCain. McCain talked about the fact that he has been a leader on this issue and is trying to get a bipartisan approach passed. He talked about specific elements of proposed legislation that is working to pass. Although I got the sense that he is more about trying to be a leader than actually crafting the legislation, that's not really a bad thing for a President. He ended with a good quote about how this isn't the beginning of the end, but is the end of the beginning of the crisis- projecting hope. Going back, he did project a lot more hope than Obama throughout the whole debate- I don't get why Obama is the candidate of "HOPE".

Obama emphasized that the question to ask about this crisis is what did we do wrong several years ago. McCain stressed asking what we can do now and in the future. Again- why is Obama considered the candidate looking into the future- all he does is talk about how he would have made different decisions in the past. That's great if we have that time-travel machine invented, but we don't, so I want to hear about what you are doing now and will do in the future- both areas Obama can say very little about.

Obama said that there are problems that need solutions. McCain mentioned specific solutions that he was working on. Obama mentioned problems with the solutions. McCain offered solutions for the solutions. Obama offers visions and questions, McCain offers legislation and answers.

Obama thinks tax breaks for the rich are bad. As he said, he wants to grow the economy from the bottom-up- give money to the poor, and then the money will trickle up to the top. Has this economic theory ever worked in history? For that matter, which economics believe in this idea, or is this just another case where Obama has decided he is really smart and knows what to do. I guess this means that Obama believes in "TRICKLE-UP" economics!

Obama wants to give 95% of people a tax cut, but then clarified that it would not be a tax cut, it just wouldn't be a tax increase. Such a politician- not raising taxes is just that- not a tax cut. If this is what he means by cuts, I'd be worried- anything he wants to 'cut' will just stay the same, and anything he wants to stay the same will be going up. I guess if 95% get cuts, the top 5% will pay more now? That's a lot of money. That's anti-trickle down economics!

Obama talked about how the market doesn't solve problems and that deregulation doesn't work. See, Obama does not believe in the free-market- he does not think that you are smart enough to make the right choices about what products to buy and how much to pay for them. He wants the government to run the economy. He might fudge this, he might clarify this, but if Obama had been in the Soviet Union in the 1980's, he would have been closer to Gorbachev than Reagan!

Obama again references using the line-item veto to solve the issue of earmarks- he said he would "go line-by-line and veto stuff"- am I mistaken about this? I'm 99% sure he can't do that right now. Does he even understand what powers the Presidency has? See my earlier post on this subject- I've noticed this in the past too- this is a reoccurring claim by Obama, and really speaks to the fact that he is less knowledgeable about what the President can and can't do than a high school government teacher (me). Someone who is a constitutional scholar should educate Obama about this, or write an article on how Obama doesn't know what he is talking about.

McCain talked about looking at his record on tax cuts, fighting spending, etc. He emphasized that a tax system has to be fair for everyone, not one sided 'anti-rich'. He is a fighter of earmarks and government waste, and an independent or moderate would really like his record. As a conservative, I like it less so- he did vote against Bush's tax cuts, and has supported some large expansions of federal power. Regardless, his record is a 1000 times better on this issue than Obama's, who is the most liberal left-wing senator in Congress.

Obama talked about how oil companies shouldn't get any tax breaks, because if they do, others will have to pay more. This logic only works if tax cuts don't cause growth in government revenue- which they do- or you refuse to lower taxes overall- which as a liberal Democrat, he could never ever even imagine lowering taxes overall. Obama wants energy independence now by developing more solar and wind power. These will not work now- although in 20-30 years, maybe!

McCain cited specific attempts of his to fight wasteful spending by talking about contracts he had fought as wasteful, legislation he introduced to combat wasteful spending, etc. McCain took this chance to talk about his proposal to increase nuclear power in the US, which is a common-sense solution to our energy needs while satisfying those who believe in the global warming myth.

On what spending would be delayed, Obama said nothing specific would be, and instead just attacked lobbyists. McCain said that he would be in place a spending freeze until after the crisis was over. Obama will not freeze spending due to the financial crisis- instead, from his answer, it sounds like in a time of crisis when money was tight he would spend more. That's the change we need! McCain said that he would help the economy grow to off-set losses.

Lesson of Iraq. McCain said the lesson was on developing a good strategy and getting the tactics right. He said he pushed for these and got them, and then success happened. Obama said the lesson he learned of Iraq was that 6 years ago he opposed the war. The lesson he learned is that it is important to always say you were against decisions that are now unpopular. He really wants that time-travel machine. Odd that again he is more backward looking than McCain. Obama then said that he would never hesitate with the use of force, but he will hesitate a lot about whether to use it in the first place (ha ha ha). Read the transcript. That's what he basically said.

Obama said that McCain was wrong that we would be welcomed as liberators, thus showing his lack of judgement, and thus why he was unfit for command. I'm always curious when I hear this one- exactly who has not welcomed us as liberators? The bad guys? People who strap bombs to their children to blow up innocents shopping to show their opposition to democracy and freedom? So what if these people don't welcome us as liberators. Most of the population has. McCain hinted at this by saying that the good guys are winning now.

Obama that the role of the President is to make the first call, but let everyone else settle on the correct tactics. McCain said that making the right tactics is also important as President. Obama said this is just managing bad problems- that's actually a good point. Maybe the only job of the President is to set the big vision and not worry about the details. Although, the Democrats and Obama have spent the last 7 years ripping Bush for his weakness with details and lack of micro-managment of everything, so I think that although this might be a good point, it is not a fair one.

Afghanistan. Obama said that we should send in more troops, by pulling them out of Iraq. He denies that there are any bad guys or terrorists in Iraq. He wants to press Afghan government to give more welfare to its people and have a stronger national government. McCain said that a troop surge isn't just it- you need to change tactics too. He also said that you shouldn't tell people your moves ahead of time. Obama implied that he would allow attacks into Pakistan if cross-border attacks continue, McCain said that you have to think of Pakistan as a failed state, and treat it with caution. He only goes all-in if he can win. Both candidates bring up bracelet- did Obama steal this idea from McCain? That's sad. Says Afghanistan is the central conflict in the War on Terror. McCain says Iraq is. And says that if Obama thought that, he should have visited Afghanistan.

Iranian Threat. McCain wants to come up with a "League of Democracies" to combat Iran. Obama doesn't want to provoke Iran, and wants Russia and China to get involved in diplomacy with the US for sanctions. Obama said that isolationism has never worked, and elaborated that never in history has not sitting down with dictators worked. McCain gave example after example of when it had worked. I guess using actual events and experience is just not that important to Obama- or for Obama voters. Obama said that he has been a leader- he said that he had suggested that we need to think about looking at talks with North Korea, and this might have started progress. McCain said that North Korea isn't progress, and implied that if this is Obama's experience, then it is rather weak. Both candidates then got into an exchange about Kissinger- Obama is flat wrong on this.

Russia. Obama said that Russia is bad, but you can't piss them off. McCain said that this is naive, that Putin is bad, and that he's been there and seen it. It really doesnt' even matter if Russia or Putin is bad, Obama doesn't believe in good or evil, just how he can win more power. I wonder- has Obama the world traveler ever been to Russia, Georgia, Afghanistan, etc.? McCain called out Obama's slow response to Georgia conflict. Obama replied that he was the first to call for foreign aid for Georgia to help them build a bigger welfare system. He then said that one of the reasons that Russia is resurgent is because of oil, and so he supports increased drilling. Did I miss something? I'm pretty sure he never has done this and is way against drilling. But actually citing experience, past voting records, and real events is probably just boring.

Preventing another 9/11. McCain said we are safer now and led push for 9/11 Commission. Obama said safer in some ways but not enough. Isn't he supposed to be about hope? He was the less hopeful of the two. He then talked about world perception and how important that was. Is improving world perception more important than sponsoring legislation? McCain said we should stay in Iraq and win, Obama disagreed. Seriously? Isn't this the debate from 4 years ago? I thought Obama's position was thoroughly discredited by now.

Obama talked about catching Bin Laden, and that this is more important than winning in Iraq. Iraq is not worth it. It's about a broader strategic vision. McCain said that Obama does not have the experience and judgement to seriously say these things.

McCain said that his record speaks for himself.

Obama said that the children of the world no longer respect us, and that's why we should elect him. Has anyone seen the research on this claim?

The after coverage was also interesting to note- I was flipping around. Here is what I saw. MSNBC said that Obama missed his chances to get McCain, and that Obama looked better. CNBC was interviewing Democrats who repeated talking points I heard last week. CNN said that McCain knew his stuff and was more in command, but Obama looked good and wove themes well. Fox News said that Obama was more direct and knew more, but Obama was more nuanced and sounded better.

I judge the winner of the debate to be McCain.

Via memeorandum (and here too) I read this report from The Hill: White House to offer 10 states waivers on No Child Left Behind:

President Obama on Thursday will offer waivers to 10 states that applied for exclusion from some aspects of the No Child Left Behind Law, according to a report in The Associated Press that cited an anonymous White House official...

...The George W. Bush-era legislation requires that all students be proficient in reading and math by 2014, and would penalize those schools where the children failed to reach required standards...

...There is broad support among both parties to reform the legislation, which Obama has called admirable but flawed. However, Congress has been gridlocked over how to do so since it came up for renewal in 2007....

President Obama once more done the wrong thing. As I wrote in my post Obama's Change to NCLB Policy: Violation of Nation's Principles?:

In 2001, George W. Bush proposed a major change to education law called The No Child Left Behind Act. This piece of legislation was supported with extensive bipartisan support in Congress and leading up to its implementation and passage there was extensive debate regarding this bill- people were given an opportunity to discuss it, come to grips with it, and properly weight its merits and problems.

NCLB at its heart was a deal- education would be reformed by putting in place at the federal level higher standards and the establishment of measurable educational goals, and in return Congress would dramatically increase the amount of amount of federal funding for education, increasing it from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007. In return for states developing assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, the federal would expand funding for reading programs and Title I programs which benefit disadvantaged children, and would considerably expand funding for IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education) to support education. That was the bargain made, after considerable discussion and debate- money in exchange for accountability.

And now, with no debate and discussion, President Obama has decided without any support from either party in Congress to go ahead and change the deal, and we can only pray that he does not alter it further....

...President Obama is once again demonstrating his unfitness for office by changing the deal, and this is a bad thing- education will continue to receive funding, but now will no longer have to meet the deal that Congress put in place- rather, they will have to meet the deal that Obama puts in place, conditions that he will establish without legislative authority or approval. This sort of action should be causing libertarians and liberals and conservatives to howl, because it is a slap in the face to democracy, elected government, separation of powers, and our Constitution. His time in office can not come to an end quickly enough...

It is time that we change directions as a nation- and thankfully in one short year we can do so. The Republican Party will eventually nominate someone who isn't Obama, and this Republican will not support the 'go it alone', unconstitutional, 'slush fund' methods of Chicago-style gangster-in-chief Barack Obama. Republicans on the House Education and the Workforce Committee have recently released two pieces of draft legislation to overhaul No Child Left Behind, with provisions in them that support state-developed accountability systems and a smaller federal footprint in education. These resolutions will be debated in our legislative branch- our law making branch of government- and funded there, and once the details have been figured out, compromises made, and hearing and testimony taken on the powers of the unintended consequences of the law, then it will become law and be executed by our President.

THAT'S HOW WE DO IT IN AMERICA- this isn't Kenya or Indonesia, where the dictator who runs our nation can just jam through his way, hopefully get Congress to approve it, and fund it all through giant slush funds that were designed to stimulate the economy or bail out failing banks back in 2009.

The ends do not justify the means in this nation- and our President is not smarter than the American public and their elected Representatives and Senators. He is not a King, ordering his advisers and czars and secretaries to implement policies and rules and waiver plans without any Congressional authority to do so simply because HE believes it to be the right policies- our President acts (especially on domestic policies) only with Congressional approval and direction. Imagine how the liberals would have howled had President Bush just decided to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan without any Congressional direction, using funds designed to pay for healthcare or education, and then laughed off any sort of oversight of his efforts. It would not be right for Bush to do that then, and it is not right for Obama to grant waivers to states for NCLB now.

Race to the Top should have been opposed, and changes to NCLB should be opposed- in America, laws must come from the legislative branch, not the White House, and President Obama's attempt to ignore the separation of powers in our nation in the hopes of jamming his views on the sovereign people of America must be opposed. Vote Republican in 2012 and throw him out of office.

UPDATE: Ace of Spades has a great post up on this subject, and says something that I have been saying to the liberals and progressives who are cheering the Presidents unilateral actions recently:

I don't even want to think like this, but if we're playing Lord of the Flies like this, I can see a Republican president waiving compliance with the National Labor Relations Board too. And the EPA. And unilaterally offering a "waiver" permitting a company to drill in ANWR.

The National Republican Trust has created something called "The Pelosi Index." It measures how closely each Democratic Representative in the House of Representatives is sticking to Pelosi's agenda by looking at where these Representatives voted on 10 key pieces of legislation. A lot of Democrat talk about being bipartisan, about being independent, about being fiscally conservative, about crossing over the aisle, or about being a 'Blue Dog', but the proof about what sort of America they support is in their votes on the House floor.

Out of the 10 Key Votes used to determine the Pelosi Index, Michigan Congressman Gary Peters, a Democrat representing Michigan's 9th District, voted in support of Pelosi on 9 of those votes. 9 out of 10 votes were for key Democrat issues. Peters voted 9 out of 10 times for left wing liberal pieces of legislation. Peters is not a moderate, he is not bipartisan, he is not independent, and he is not conservative in any way- he is a 90% reliable left wing vote for California liberal Democrat Nancy Pelosi.

Gary Peters voted for the massive $787 billion “Stimulus Bill” that has been blown on pet projects of little value to society while soaking up valuable funding. There was no money for this bill, so your children will have to pay for it someday.

Gary Peters voted for a $33 billion increase in funding for the children's health insurance program, so that it can be expanded to provide insurance to non-children, rich children, and illegal immigrants. It also included a 61-cent tax increase on tobacco products, which disproportionately impacts poor working families and is declining source of revenue.

Gary Peters voted for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which creates a new litigious business model of trolling for decades old employee complaints, redefined “discrimination”, opens businesses up to lawsuits beyond outright discrimination, and opens business to lawsuits from decades ago over unintentional acts of pay discrimination. Trail lawyers love it, but it will lead to higher labor costs, lower wages and loss of jobs- thanks Gary for your vote!

Gary Peters signed on to the irresponsible 2009 omnibus budget bill, which was an unrestrained government spending spree that totals $410 billion and includes more than 9,000 earmarks. This bill represents an 8.3% increase in domestic spending, dwarfing the rate of inflation, and when combined with the recently passed stimulus bill (HR-1) which Peters also voted for, it results in an 80% total increase for discretionary programs this year.

Gary Peters voted in favor of the Cap and Trade bill, which would be the largest tax increase in the history of the world. The cap and trade scheme would place a cap on carbon emissions, which would ultimately drive up the cost of production of every item produced, transported and consumed in America. The whole point of this scheme is to significantly increase the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. If implemented companies in his district would be crippled by regulation and unable to compete in the global marketplace.

Gary Peters voted against Michigan Congressman Stupak's Anti-Abortion Amendment. I'm not sure what Peters position was when he ran for office last year, but I doubt it was on supporting attempts to funnel your taxpayer money to run abortion clinics. This amendment, which bans the federal government from supporting abortion clinics with taxpayer money, passed with Democrat and Republican support- but Gary Peters was against it because he wants to take money from you to abort babies.

The Pelosi version of Obamacare represents a $1.3 trillion government takeover of the health care system that will raise insurance premiums, increase the overall cost of healthcare and raise taxes. Gary Peters supported it.

Gary Peters supported the “death tax” legislation that would permanently impose a 45 percent inheritance tax on estates larger than $3.5 million. Small businesses and family-owned farms are often hit the hardest by this tax, and this legislation is not adjusted for inflation, which means more and more American families will be subject to this tax every year. Gary Peters want to tax you and then tax you again when you die.

After supporting raising the US debt ceiling over and over, Gary Peters finally voted against Nancy Pelosi and voted against raising it by another $1.9 trillion to a record high $14.3 trillion. I guess he doesn't support raising the debt ceiling, but yet he supported all the spending that makes that necessary. If the debt ceiling would not have been raised, the US would have defaulted on loans and been faced with higher interest rates- so what was Peters thinking with this one? He supported the spending- at least be a consistent left-wing liberal and do the responsible thing, Peters, and vote for my children to pay for your schemes.

The President of the United States should be clerk, and nothing more. Conservatives and Tea Party people should not be looking for the President to be a 'king' who commands us to go forth and do his bidding, they should not be looking for the President to be the source of ideas about how government should run, and they should not be looking for the President to be an outsider who will shake up Washington.

The office, as designed by our Founding Fathers and illustrated in Article II of the Constitution, is an office that empowers the President of the United States to execute the laws passed by Congress in the most efficient manner, act as Commander-in-Chief of our military, act as the dignified ceremonial chief of state, handle foreign policy with other nations, and discharge effectively the various other duties of the office. A true conservative or someone who wants our nation to return to its Founding Principles should be pushing for the person who is best able to act as a clerk, a manager, and a CEO for America Inc.

You see, in reality the presidency is essentially a glorified clerk in our system, and is not actually a game-changing all-powerful King. The power of the President stems from his ability to use his office to trade favors or the promise of favors to accomplish the goal of efficiently managing the affairs of the state; his power does not (nor should it) from his ability to order others to do his bidding and his ability to issue executive orders and put in place policies. The legislative branch is better and more powerfully designed for those purposes, and so all decisions about the laws and policies of our nation should be generated from that branch, and then the President implements them in an efficient and able manner.

The President is able to implement these policies in an able and efficient manner because he has lots of little pieces of power spread through out nation's political system- he is able to send troops abroad, deliver the state of the union address, control various executive departments, play a vital role in the budgeting process, issues pardons and grant reprieves, etc, and he can also use his informal power and influence to invite policy leaders to the White House, go on national TV, lobby for legislation, etc. His power- both real and perceived- gets others to re-appraise what is in their best interest, and they are then persuaded that it is better to get along with the President and what he wants to do rather than fight against his able and methodical and efficient powers.

Look, I know this isn't exciting to you guys- you all want a President who will blow your socks off, light up the system, ride in on a horse of hope and change and remake the world. You want a king to rule you and control other people who you disagree with. You wish that someone who will go into the White House and then start just shutting down executive departments, slashing spending on programs, and ignoring the Judicial and Legislative Branches to bring you closer to our Founding Fathers. The problem is, that isn't how our Founding Fathers designed the office of the President and it is not how our Founding Fathers would have wanted the system to work, and once you go down the path to making our President a King, he can be a liberal King too in a short 4 to 8 years.

As I wrote in Calvin Coolidge, One of the Best Presidents?:

The best Presidents are those who did very little, ran the executive office smoothly and without problems or corruption, and conformed to the Constitution as closely as possible. Jefferson was President for two terms, and other then the Louisiana Purchase, his administration happily has little to note other than peace and prosperity. James Madison had to respond to the War of 1812, yes- but other than that, peace and prosperity. Calvin Coolidge was like this too- nothing to note during his time in office other than nothing to note- peoples lives were protected, the nation was prosperous, and property was well protected.

The President is a powerful person in our political system- but he has grown too powerful, and I don't want him to become even more powerful and active and arbitrary, even if for a while he would be doing so in a conservative or libertarian manner. Rather, our President should be good at working with the Congress to effect significant changes to our laws and policies, he should be good at closing doors and coming out of them with policy-leaders minds changed, he should know our political system inside and out and understand how to move various levers to get stuff done, and he should be able to judiciously use his public prestige to pressure leaders to voluntarily arrive at policy decisions that he supports. He should be a competent manager and efficient steward of taxpayer resources. At the end of his Presidency, we should not say that he brought hope and change to the American system, but rather we should say that when he left after eight quiet years as President, peoples lives had been protected from domestic and international threats, that the nation had remained prosperous and free of debts, and that private property had been well protected and preserved.

The description of a 'great' President that I have outlined above is most definitely not a description of our current President. President Barack Obama went into the White House without the skills needed to be an effective or even good President, and he has shown no desire to put in the hard work, the humility, and the intelligence to acquire these skills. Yes, I know that during his first two years much legislation was passed (which he now claims makes him the fourth best President ever)- but that was during a time period when one element of society- liberal Democrats- controlled almost all the national levers of policy-making (House, Senate, President, and bureaucracy)- and since that time, more elements of society are represented in our political system, and he has demonstrated that in these more pluralistic and typical circumstances that he is completely ineffective. You see, the earlier 'success' he had in driving the policy-agenda was really because it was being driven by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who pushed their legislation and priorities in spite of what Obama desired or wanted- those who have been part of this legislation have written several times that the White House was remarkably passive during that time period and just went along with whatever Congress wanted (which in itself is not a bad thing, but in the context of demonstrating leadership it is). But once Obama's party lost control of the House, we were able to see truly just how bad a President he is and how bad he as at filling this office.

President Obama is poor at working with Congress, bad at working with others of different opinions than his own, too quick to attack in public those who he disagrees with (probably because he is so awful at convincing them to change policies behind closed doors), he does not know how to use all the various levers in policy-making that he has, and overuses the prestige of his office such that it the prestige has been watered down (I'm imaging him promoting Monday Night Football right now). He is an incompetent manager and a poor steward of taxpayer resources (his family is spending millions in taxpayer money on a vacation to Hawaii as I write this). At the end of his Presidency (hopefully next year), we'll look back at the last four years as being some of the most chaotic and partisan and rough years, and look at his record as our President- a nation that is less prosperous, less free, burdened with debts, with horribly destroyed foundations (crumbling roads, bridges, schools, and Social Security, Medicare, and other programs that have been bankrupted and unreformed), and with private property under attack (Occupy Wall Street, Dodd-Frank, the bankruptcy of GM, etc). President Obama is a bad President.

Could any of the Republican candidates for President be a 'great' President? I don't know- I'll let you make your own decisions on that for now. But much of what I wrote here I pulled from an earlier post I wrote called Ron Paul- Drop Out of the Race where I considered Congressman Paul's candidacy in light of these ideas. But do Romney, Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann, or Santorum meet the qualifications I laid out above better than Obama? They likely do- for example, look at Romney's experience as Governor of at blue-state or saving the Salt Lake City Olympics, or Perry's able Governorship of successful Texas, or Gingrich's record of balancing the budget with a Democratic President, but I surely must  revisit this concept and evaluate the GOP candidates accordingly in a later post- be sure to check back often on my blog for this post.

Oh, and in reply to the liberals and progressives and fascists who are emailing me trying to personally attack me- I do have several degrees from good universities in public policy, I teach government for a living, and my argument is based in part on professor Richard Neustadt's book Presidential Power (purchase the book today- Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan). My arguments are sound and hopefully well-reasoned, and as always, I'd love to defend them in print or on the radio, and I would love it if you would email this post or link to it on your blog so that our Presidential election in 2012 is that much more informed.

Good evening.

This is a special night for me. Three years ago, in 2008, I accepted the nomination of my party to run for President of the United States. I promised you a President who is not isolated from the people, who feels your pain, and who shares your dreams and who draws his strength and his wisdom from you.

During the past 3 years I've spoken to you on many occasions about national concerns, the energy crisis, reorganizing the Government, our Nation's economy, and issues of war and especially peace.

Ten days ago I had planned to speak to you again about a very important subject -- hopechangetogetherness. For the uncountable time I would have lectured you on the urgency of the problem and laid out a series of legislative recommendations to the Congress. But as I was preparing to speak, I began to ask myself the same question that I now know has been troubling many of you. Why have we not been able to get together as a nation to resolve our serious energy problem?

It's clear that the true problems of our Nation are much deeper -- deeper than high gasoline prices, deeper than the madness of the NCAA tournament, deeper even than expected inflation or the continuing recession. And I realize more than ever that as President I need your help. So, I decided to reach out and listen to the voices of America.

I invited to Camp David people from almost every segment of our society, including labor union leaders, government union leaders, teachers, bureaucrats, university professors, donors to my campaign, Democrat Governors, the Mayor of Chicago, and foreign officials. It has been an extraordinary 10 days, and I want to share with you what I've heard.

These 10 days confirmed my belief in the decency and the strength and the wisdom of the American people, but it also bore out some of my longstanding concerns about our Nation's underlying problems.

I know, of course, being President, that government actions and legislation can be very important. That's why I've worked hard to pass legislation and conduct myself in a manner completely different from what I promised in my campaign -- and I have to admit, these have been met with little success. But after listening to the American people I have been reminded again that all the legislation in the world can't fix what's wrong with America. So, I want to speak to you first tonight about a subject even more serious than energy or inflation. I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy.

The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our Nation. The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.

America, you are what is wrong with America, and we need to change you to make you better.

The confidence that we have always had as a people is simply some romantic dream from a slavery past or was a proverb in a dusty book that we once read. The real confidence of America and the reason it was founded is to elect me so that I can progress our Nation. Confidence in the future has supported everything else -- public institutions, our own unions, and the very Government of the United States. Confidence has defined our course and has served as a link between generations. We've always believed in something called progress. We've always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own, in spite of the massive debt and underfunded institutions we are pushing to them.

This loss of confidence did not happen overnight. They've come upon us because of Republicans and the resulting years of shocks and tragedy.

Looking for a way out of this crisis, our people have turned to the Federal Government and found it isolated from the mainstream of our Nation's life. Washington, D.C., has become an island. The gap between our citizens and our Government has never been so wide. The people are looking for honest answers, not easy answers; clear leadership, not false claims and evasiveness and politics as usual.

What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action. You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well financed and powerful special interests. You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or another. You often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and without friends.

Often you see paralysis and stagnation and drift. You don't like, and neither do I. What can we do?

First of all, we must face the truth, and then we can change our course. We simply must have faith in each other, faith in the ability of Democrats to govern you, and faith in the future of this Nation. Restoring that faith and that confidence to America is now the most important task we face. It is a true challenge of this generation of Americans.

We know the strength of America. We will be strong. We can regain our unity. We can regain our confidence. We are the heirs of generations who forged a New Deal, a Fair Deal, a Square Deal, and who built a Great Society. Although my grandmother was a racist, my Muslim father from Kenya and my mother were strong, and believed that in me they had created someone who would carve out a new charter of peace for the world.

We ourselves and the same Americans just three years ago elected me, a man who represents hope and change We are the generation that dedicated our society to the pursuit of human rights and equality. And we are the generation that will win the kinetic military actions against non-state actors and we are the generation that will cool the globe and stop the rise of the oceans and in doing so build a new confidence in America.

We are a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest, the path that Republicans want us to take. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others, the right to keep and own private property, and the right to choose life. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.

All the traditions of our present, all the lessons of the failures of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to True Freedom for our Nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our confidence problem.

I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our Nation's problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. We know the Republicans, Tea Party activists, and conservatives will attempt to block us and prevent us from progressing as a society to True Freedom. What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure openness and togetherness and hope. And above all, I will vote present on this issue and be the one we were waiting for.

Little by little we can and we must rebuild our confidence. We can spend until we empty our treasuries, and we may summon all the wonders of science. But we can succeed only if we tap our greatest resources -- America's people, America's values, and America's confidence.

I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people, which I will spend and then some. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for a confident nation.

In closing, let me say this: I will do my best, and I will do it alone if need be. If you support me, then let your voice be heard- whenever you have a chance, say something good about me and my plan. With my help and for the sake of our Nation, it is time for us to join hands in America. Let us commit ourselves together to a rebirth of the American spirit, this one based on my vision of hope and change and togetherness and progress. Working together with this common faith we cannot fail. We are the ones we have been waiting for.

Thank you and good night.

UPDATE: This is a fake speech that I expect Obama to give soon. It is based on Jimmy Carter's "Malaise Speech" in 1979. What is surprising is how little I actually have changed from that speech- I'm honest, I only changed an occasional word or edited out an occasional section, and yet this speech sounds like something Obama would say. Does it sound like a speech Romney, or Palin, or Bush, or Reagan, or Lincoln, or Jefferson, or Washington would say? No, but it does sound like a speech for Obama, Carter, Hoover, or Buchanan. That says something.

House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, sent a message today that that they will use the huge majorities that they won in November's elections to overpower Republicans any time they wish. In her famous spirit of bipartisanship, compromise, and fairness, Pelosi has signaled that the only voices that matter in our lower house are Democrats' and that they will not budge from their beliefs in the name of doing what they want. Hopefully you can see the irony with this.

The rules changes are supposed to reflect the Democratic view of how the House should be run, and thus are a good indication of what you get when you vote Democrat these days. In the spirit of fiscal responsibility, openness and transparency, Pelosi is making it easier for special projects to be added to legislation by House-Senate conferees after both houses already approved legislation. To represent the change and hope of its news members, Pelosi wants to end the Republican-imposed six-year term limits on committee chairmen and let committee chairmen serve in their personal legislative kingdoms for life.

Another rule change deals with motions to recommit- I'm no expert in parliamentary procedure, but what I gather is that motions to recommit a bill to committee are called for when someone wants to amend the bill, and send it back to committee to be re-written with the amendment, before it is re-submitted to the House floor. This is done rather than amending it while on the House floor. This would slow up legislation and make votes held on the specific amendments, which might make someone look bad. And if you're trying to sneak taxes and fees into unrelated bills, you don't want anyone making you vote on those.

Information for this post came from these stories- here and here.

UPDATE: Using a series of procedural motions, House Republicans forced Pelosi to back off from these rule changes today. It is a temporary victory, most likely- she is a weak leader, but a sneaky one, and will slip in the rule changes somehow so she can rule the House like a petty dictator that she is. Read the link for more info.

President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress who voted in favor of it are going to stand for election in another year, and when they do it is important to for voters to remember that one of the biggest pieces of legislation that they pushed for and voted for was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as 'Obamacare.'

Part of Obamacare included a provision for temporary waivers, which were put put in place to encourage employers and insurers who are currently offering mini-med plans not to withdraw medical coverage before the full regulations come into force. This is an important aspect of the legislation- if these waivers were not in place, employers and insurers might decide to drop coverage for employees and push these employees into the public system, thereby driving up costs for the public and putting further pressure on our already bankrupt system.

The problem with these waivers is that like most aspects of the Obama administration is that it was a corrupt process- corrupt in the sense that this waiver process became tied up in trading in influence, patronage, cronyism, electoral fraud, and kickbacks. Democrats in Congress were supposed to be proving oversight to this process, but were negligent in their duties, and so there was all sorts of evidence that the waiver process was corrupt. I wrote about it myself in my post Evidence is Mounting that Obamacare is All Sorts of Corrupt?, where I wrote the following:

It was my suspicion several months ago that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was a corrupt piece of legislation designed to transfer property and choice from those who have it to those who want it. There would be those who would not want to be part of this process who would then ask for waivers, and it was my suspicion that these waivers would be given out based on political considerations- in other words, they would be given to groups that support the Democratic Party, Obama in particular, or to companies who had access and connections to those Democratic party officials who were making the decisions on the waivers, likely because of their campaign donations. So I started to do some research on the issue- as I stated, the research was by no means an exhaustive list of evidence but did end up being some pretty fair anecdotal evidence that those who are receiving waivers from Obamacare are those who donated large amounts of money to Barack Obama. Check out the post for my little bit of research on this issue.

The process of getting waivers was established by law, and supporters of Obamacare gave many speeches on it where they further clarified and expanded on the meaning of the law, and in every case, these Obamacare waivers were to be granted until 2014.

But, as the corruption inherent in the process has become politically damaging, Obama has decided to change the law by issuing a decree ending the health care waiver program on September 22.

This is President Obama, supported by the modern Democratic Party- ruling by decree, changing laws around to suit their political interests, and restraining themselves from engaging in further corrupt activities only because their past corruption is now being exposed by bloggers like me.

The purpose of these waivers was to avoid disrupting coverage, but Obama has decided that it would be much better for him to disrupt insurance coverage for our nation if it will remove a politically embarrassing and corrupt program that he worked to pass. Let me be clear- Obama has made a selfish decision that will damage our nation because he believes it will help him hide politically his policies and his past actions. These sorts of actions move Obama away from simply naively incompetent to dangerously corrupt.

In several earlier posts I have been critical of Obamacare because it attacks life, liberty, and property and because it represents the growing tyranny of the federal government. But somehow I missed an important reason why we should oppose giving the national government more control over our healthcare system- power should not be concentrated in the hands of government and government officials because when this happens it increases by considerable amounts the chances that this power will be used in a corrupt manner. And we're seeing that under President Barack Obama (Democrat) and a Congress that was run by Nancy Pelosi (Democrat), legislation like Obamacare was passed into law that is now leading to considerable amounts of corruption in our system.

Corruption takes makes many forms, but in this case, we have to consider whether or not Democrats, led by President Obama and Democrats in Congress, passed legislation that allows and encourages more corruption in our nation and also whether or not these same Democrats continue to be encouraging and supporting of corruption. Corruption is seen usually in several ways- trading in influence, patronage, cronyism, electoral fraud, and kickbacks.

It was my suspicion several months ago that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was a corrupt piece of legislation designed to transfer property and choice from those who have it to those who want it. There would be those who would not want to be part of this process who would then ask for waivers, and it was my suspicion that these waivers would be given out based on political considerations- in other words, they would be given to groups that support the Democratic Party, Obama in particular, or to companies who had access and connections to those Democratic party officials who were making the decisions on the waivers, likely because of their campaign donations. So I started to do some research on the issue- as I stated, the research was by no means an exhaustive list of evidence but did end up being some pretty fair anecdotal evidence that those who are receiving waivers from Obamacare are those who donated large amounts of money to Barack Obama. Check out the post for my little bit of research on this issue. Usually where there is lots of smoke there is a fire, and it turns out the smoke I saw is now being seen by others.

The Daily Caller is reporting that:

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district. That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers. Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments.

This is not shocking news to me- Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House and Barack Obama is still our President, and both are Democrats, and of course the kick-backs will be going primarily to areas that supported them, whether they be in Pelosi's district or union allies or local government units that vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

I think Mona Charen from RealClearPolitics really understands the nature of Obamacare- it is designed to move us away from a nation built on equality and laws to a nation built on power and men:

....There are rumblings of suspicion that HHS has shown favoritism -- labor unions have received some 26 percent of waivers while comprising only 12 percent of workers. As Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee remarked, "What does it say about the feasibility of the health care law when the administration needs to exempt over 1,000 health plans from its own law?"

A few wags have suggested that the HHS grant the rest of the country a waiver and be done with it. But the implications of what Professor Richard Epstein has called "government by waiver" aren't funny. As Congress has ceded more and more power to regulatory agencies, the opportunities for abuse of power multiply. Writing in National Affairs, Epstein notes that among the companies and entities that successfully sought waivers from Obamacare's provisions were PepsiCo, Foot Locker, the Pew Charitable Trusts, many local chapters of the Teamsters, the United Food and Commercial Workers union, and numerous public-employee unions.

But, asks Epstein, "(W)hat about employers who do not have the resources to navigate the waiver process? What about those lacking the political connections to make their concerns heard in Washington? And what happens when the one-year waivers run out? Will they be renewed? Under what conditions? And what rights will insurers have to waive then in order to avoid going out of business?"

The world of Obamacare is no place for the little guy.

The danger of waiver power is that it will be used differentially, giving one private entity a competitive advantage over another. The company denied a waiver can bring suit -- but litigation is expensive and slow....

....Because there are so few avenues of recourse when we live under a government by waiver, we are forced, as Epstein warns, to trust in the good judgment of bureaucrats and elected officials: "The fate of our rights and liberties is left to the wisdom and discretion of individuals; we are therefore governed by men, not by laws."

In Marbury v. Madison, Justice Marshall wrote: "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." It will also cease to deserve that "high appellation" if we submit to the unreviewable discretion of agencies.

There really are two visions of the future of America being pushed for by the two parties in our nation- one vision pushes for a nation built on laws (although you might disagree with some of those laws) and another vision pushes for a nation built on the rule of powerful men (although you might agree with some of the rules these men establish). It's a tough choice for many- side with the strongman who promises a better future, or side with the lawman who promises a nation built on law. Many will be seduced, and our nation will be less because of it.

According to Yahoo News, Democrat President Barack Obama is about to sign a law that was sent to him by the Democrat-controlled Congress that will give the bureaucratic national Food and Drug Administration unprecedented authority to regulate the ingredients that a private company puts into its products, regulate advertising of these companies, and put in place rules that make these products less flavorful. The legislation is called the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

Whatever your views on smoking are, and I happen to find it a disgusting habit, this legislation is wrong. It gives the national government to decide that it doesn't like a particular product and can use its power to attack any company that produces this product and drive it out of business. It gives unelected bureaucrats the power to control a major industry in our nation, controlling the products themselves and their advertising, controlling free speech and getting the government further involved with private businesses. It will lead to more corruption, more pay-offs, and more tyranny.

If you feel smoking is a threat to life because of second-hand smoke, than ban it outright. But if it isn't, then it is not the government's business to suppress liberty and seize property. As the yahoo article points out, anti-smoking advocates have been pushing for years for this bill so that they can control an industry fundamental to the U.S. These groups who personally oppose smoking know that once this bill is signed, they can lobby and pay off politicians to drive something underground that they personally oppose. It is using the power and force of government to punish politically-unfavored groups.

Opponents of the bill have argued that the federal government does not have this power, that the national government shouldn't pass legislation that attacks particular areas of the country, that the FDA is a corrupt and inefficient mechanism for the forces of good, that this bill will be unsuccessful and counter-productive, and that tobacco companies are already doing more on their own to reduce second-hand smoke by producing smokeless tobacco.

These arguments have fallen on gleefully deaf ears, as anti-smoking forces recognize that hope and change are in the air and now is the time to institute rules that tyrannize opponents. The Obama administration recently issued a royal decree declaring strong support for the measure. President Obama himself frequently enjoys cigarettes and likely will find a loophole in any laws that take away his cigarettes or lower their quality.

In 2001, George W. Bush proposed a major change to education law called The No Child Left Behind Act. This piece of legislation was supported with extensive bipartisan support in Congress and leading up to its implementation and passage there was extensive debate regarding this bill- people were given an opportunity to discuss it, come to grips with it, and properly weight its merits and problems.

NCLB at its heart was a deal- education would be reformed by putting in place at the federal level higher standards and the establishment of measurable educational goals, and in return Congress would dramatically increase the amount of amount of federal funding for education, increasing it from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007. In return for states developing assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, the federal would expand funding for reading programs and Title I programs which benefit disadvantaged children, and would considerably expand funding for IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education) to support education. That was the bargain made, after considerable discussion and debate- money in exchange for accountability.

And now, with no debate and discussion, President Obama has decided without any support from either party in Congress to go ahead and change the deal, and we can only pray that he does not alter it further.

Via The Heritage Group:

“Congress hasn’t been able to do it, so I will.” With this bold statement, President Obama announced last Friday that he would unilaterally replace the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) with conditions-based waivers. Obama’s waiver strategy is an alarming misuse of executive power that undermines the separation of powers.

In and of itself, the use of waivers is not unconstitutional. Congress has the authority to create laws with provisions that allow the President to grant exceptions in certain circumstances. NCLB does, for instance, authorize the Secretary of Education to grant waivers to applicants that meet certain criteria. However, waivers are not written as blank checks of authority for the President to bypass Congress and enact new policy.

In this case, the President is using waivers to rewrite the law. The Obama waivers go far beyond the measures allowed by NCLB. To receive a waiver, states must agree to implement a new set of goals and programs determined not by Congress, but by the White House.

For months, President Obama and Congressional Republicans have disagreed on how to reform NCLB. There are major problems with the law’s intrusive regulations. But the Obama administration decided that the “do-nothing Congress” could not be trusted to act and so the President is acting without them.

But co-opting the waiver power to craft a new laws designed in and implemented by the White House is a departure from the constitutional separation of powers. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to craft the nation’s laws and to reform those laws when they do not work as planned. The executive is authorized to carry out the laws passed by Congress. But this can be quite bothersome for a President if Congress doesn’t see things his way.

The President does have a proper constitutional role to play in the legislative process. The President has the power to veto or sign a bill. Furthermore, as permitted by the recommendation clause of Article 1, Section 3, the President may recommend legislation to Congress. This is does not mean that the President can unilaterally create law as if by royal edict. To become law, legislation (even when recommended by the President) must first pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the President. This process ensures that any law will be subject to deliberation by both the nationally elected President and the Congressmen who are more attuned to the particular interests and concerns of the local communities they represent.

Both congressional Republicans and president Obama acknowledge that NCLB is a flawed law. While it may be tempting to seek a quick fix to this sprawling and unpopular program that avoids a partisan battle, misusing waivers to enact new policy without the consent of the elected representatives in Congress is not the way to address the issue.

President Obama is once again demonstrating his unfitness for office by changing the deal, and this is a bad thing- education will continue to receive funding, but now will no longer have to meet the deal that Congress put in place- rather, they will have to meet the deal that Obama puts in place, conditions that he will establish without legislative authority or approval. This sort of action should be causing libertarians and liberals and conservatives to howl, because it is a slap in the face to democracy, elected government, separation of powers, and our Constitution. His time in office can not come to an end quickly enough.

In 2008, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Democrats passed this law in response to the 2007 lead-toy scare, and its intended aim was to scrub the lead from toys, bikes, and clothes that little children played with, and that is a good intention. But like most legislation the Democrats advocate full of good intention, the devil in the details creates unwelcome side effects- in this case, the Democrats effort to make toys safer has led to many toymakers laying off employees, cutting back on investments, lowering quality of their toys, and even being driven out of business.

That's the problem with Democrats legislation- the unintended consequences of it. In this case, the law bans products that contain led concentrations of 300 parts per million or more in places or areas that can be touched or accessed easily by children. In order to prove that a toy is lead-free, toymakers must spend anywhere from $300 to $4000 per produce in tests. This cost is not a big hurdle for the big toy companies, but is a big problem for small-batch, independent toymakers. Once again we see the effect of higher fees and regulations- small businesses, the engine of economic growth in our nation, are driven out of business, while the big business, donating large amounts of funding to the Democrats, gain in market share, all in the name of 'the children'.

Oh, I care about about the kids- that's why I trust good old-fashioned small businesses that are local and use quality methods- just the kind that are driven out of business by laws such as the one that the Democrats passed in Congress last year.

The law could also cause makers of essentially harmless products to move overseas to avoid the regulations. Let's say you make a bike, and the brake levers contain higher concentrations of lead in them- a company may decide to move their operations to another country rather than deal with the prohibitive regulations that Congress passes in the name of safety.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission gave small toymakers an extension until 2010 before complying with these safety regulations, but that's now, and so expect over the coming year for a lot of domestic small toymakers to be driven out of business by government regulations, and their market share to go to Chinese companies that were the ones that were caught putting the lead in the toys in the first place.

Legislation has consequences, and although good intentions matter, those consequences matter more. Elections have consequences too- in the future, vote Republican.

Democrats once screamed over and over the mantra that "Bush lied" and "Bush mislead" Americans to drag up illegally into the Iraq War. Democratic Senator Obama was one of the loudest to shrill this mantra, claiming over and over again that to get us to go to war in Iraq, Bush suppressed information that was contrary to his views, only published government reports that agreed with his agenda, and knowingly falsified information to bring us to war.

But one of the primary characteristics of a liberal is that they only care about power, and principles such as honesty and transparency only mean something when they feel those things can be used to gain more control over someone elses life. Now that Democrat Obama is in charge of the White House, information is suppressed, political pressure is brought to bear to make sure that government reports only say what Obama wants them to say, and information is knowingly and actively falsified in order to pass legislation.

And the media and the liberals are silent. They were so vocal about lying and misleading during the Bush years, when President Bush killed terrorists and brought democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. In retrospect, some of the information he used to bring us to war was not the most accurate, but most likely that was caused by mistakes, bad assumptions, and groupthink. That's a little bit different than a deliberate and purposeful attempt to mislead people using information that you know is false, or suppressing information that clearly contradicts your views, or putting political pressure from the White House of government agencies to ignore all those who speak out against its agenda. One is mistaken- the other is criminal.

Although Obama has only been in power of the US state for a short time, he and his minions are already applying pressure to produce government reports that fit their agenda, suppress those that disagree, and falsify information. For example, the EPA apparently dismissed an analyst’s report questioning the science behind global warming.

So liberals and Democrats, start up your shrill cries again- "Obama lied!" "Obama mislead!" The following are adaptions from from various "Bush lied" websites (here, here, here, here)- only the names and subjects have been changed, the language and structure remains the same. Surprisingly, changing 'Bush' to 'Obama' and 'war in Iraq' to 'global warming' is all I really have to do to use the language of the left against itself. Feel free to use these phrases whenever you want:

• "Obama led people to believe that global warming is real by repeatedly linking talking about it in his speeches. This is so effective that many Americans actually believed some sort of climate change bill is needed."
• "Obama has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for passing the Cap and Trade legislation. But Obama was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress."
• "This global warming bill is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global climate czar, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were."
• "Obama still insists that there is a "relationship" between human activity and the entire planet warming up. But several groups have released reports saying, among other things, that there is no "collaborative relationship" between human activity and global warming."
• "Americans who are fundamentally misinformed about global warming provide the bulk of those questioned in polls which show support for Obama and the global warming bill. Subtract them from polls and Obama is an unpopular president -- widely seen as having accomplished a bait and switch, redirecting U.S. anger and vengeance toward an issue that does not interest us."
• "Obama issued statements which 'were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to pass the cap and trade bill under decidedly false pretenses.'"
• "Obama has a habit of just making shit up when it suits his needs. Just look at his selling of his cap and trade legislation. Lies, lies and lies. But while I consider these lies the worst of the lot, the health care lies may be the one that causes the most damage. Some background: the Obama Administration wants to sell its socialized medicine plan to a wary nation. The budget was already out of control, and Democrats notice that the people are wary of creating new government entitlements. Obama needs their votes. So he lies to them."

The Swiss recently celebrated the digging of a $10 billion, 35.4-mile (57-kilometer) tube will connect Europe's high-speed rail network to various valleys and low lying areas of Switzerland, without having to use trucks to go over the Alps. This is a mighty accomplishment, but what was intriguing about it was the way that it was done- Swiss voters approved the tunnel's construction in a series of referendums almost 20 years ago, where despite some criticism at the cost — almost $1,300 for every citizen — the proposal passed by a wide margin.

"Today proves how sustainable, strong and efficient our direct democracy is," Swiss Transport Minister Moritz Leuenberger told miners, VIPs and reporters amid the raucous underground celebrating as the huge drill broke through the last stretch of rock deep in the Swiss Alps.

Direct democracy is a form of democracy which sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. Depending on the particular system, this assembly might pass executive motions, make laws, elect or dismiss officials, and conduct trials. Direct democracy stands in contrast to representative democracy, where sovereignty is exercised by a subset of the people, usually on the basis of election. In America, we have elements of direct democracy in the form of initiatives, referendums, and recalls, but mostly our nation relies on electing officials who then make decisions for us.

After watching the disasters of the last several decades, where more and more political power is accumulated in the national government and representatives increasingly represent larger and larger population groups, I have to wonder if our system works any more. It isn't working any more like our founding fathers designed it- direct election of senators, fixed number of Representatives, vast expansion of federal government, etc- so it shouldn't offend conservatives to question our present system. Perhaps it is the system that is broken, and a radical new fix is required?

Via wikipedia's entry on Direct Democracy:

In Switzerland, single majorities are sufficient at the town, city, and canton level, but at the national level, double majorities are required on constitutional matters. The intent of the double majorities is simply to ensure any citizen-made law's legitimacy.

Double majorities are, first, the approval by a majority of those voting, and, second, a majority of cantons in which a majority of those voting approve the ballot measure. In 1890, when the provisions for Swiss national citizen lawmaking were being debated by civil society and government, the Swiss copied the idea of double majorities from the United States Congress, in which House votes were to represent the people and Senate votes were to represent the states. According to its supporters, this "legitimacy-rich" approach to national citizen lawmaking has been very successful. Switzerland has had tandem successes both socially and economically which are matched by only a few other nations, and that the United States is not one of them.

Did you catch that? Originally, the Swiss copied our system, and have since been very happy with it, but here in America, the progressives (early liberals) changed our system and since then, our nation has been increasingly unhappy with our system and the laws it passes, both by Republicans and Democrats. Double majorities and direct democracy may be the direction that our nation should go in the future to achieve more legitimate government.

How might this look and how might this be implemented in that United States? Well, the easiest place to start would be to conduct a constitutional convention at the state level and go about testing this idea at the state level, whereby a state would invest political power in both county level government and state level government, which would both have veto power over any proposed legislation of state-wide importance. Of course state authorities would have responsibility for day-to-day management of the state, but major legislation (raising of taxes, new executive agencies, legalization of drugs, major regulation of healthcare or energy industries, building of new major transportation lines, etc) would be required to pass a double majority of both state government (which could be unicameral) and a majority of county governments (which also could be unicameral). This would increase the legitimacy of laws that were passed in a given state and ensure that citizens were engaged and supportive of any major laws passed by the state.

Our founding fathers knew that local government and limited government were important to in the creation of laws that the people supported and believed in, and yet over the years our government has become increasingly illegitimate, both with the engagement of the United States in unpopular wars and the more recent passage of unpopular legislation such as Obamacare, the stimulus bill, and budget bills. Our nation might need an example or inspiration for change, and we've learned it can't come from the election of one person and that structural changes are needed- perhaps Switzerland's direct democracy system, modified and adopted by a US state, could serve as that basis.

Suggested book to read related to this post: The Referendum: Direct Democracy in Switzerland.

UPDATE: Saw a post by John Woo called Repeal the 17th Amendment. I'm all for it, and I think this latest line of thought about providing for a double majority is fascinating. At the very least, state governments should pass a law requesting that their federal senators appear monthly in front of the state legislators and discuss what they've been up to. It might serve some positive purpose on making Senators justify their paychecks, since they have a term so long that people lose track of exactly what they do with all that time.

As a reminder, last year Fox News put together a report that analyzed who warned us about the financial crisis that set off our current economic crisis, and those who worked to ignore those warnings. The record is quite clear on this issue- one party predicted the correct economic future and worked to pass legislation that would protect America- another party worked and voted to block this legislation and frequently made statements about the future of our nation that have been 100% proven to be incorrect. Sadly, America voted in the wrong party, the Democrats, who the record will show worked against the interests of our nation and hurt America with their actions. See the video to be reminded that we had a chance to avert this current crisis, and Democrats ruined that chance. Vote the right way next time.

Every month teacher unions from around the nation gather together to pray at the alter of the Democratic Party, offering up the usual sacrifices (unions dues) and saying the usual prayers (another term for Obama). As part of this monthly ritual held in every public school district in the nation, union leaders faithfully repeat the claim that Republicans are anti-education and that President Obama is pro-education. Let's examine this claim in light of the a recent release from the House Education and the Workforce Committee Republicans:

Late last year, the U.S. Secretary of Education took unprecedented action and announced a plan that would allow the administration to unilaterally dictate federal education policy without Congressional input.

Secretary Arne Duncan’s plan to grant waivers for certain requirements under No Child Left Behind in exchange for states adopting the administration’s preferred education agenda has been called “the most sweeping use of executive authority to rewrite federal education law since Washington expanded its involvement in education in the 1960s” by the New York Times. In the Washington Post, George Will likened the plan to “coercive federalism”...

...Already, this conditional waivers plan has generated great uncertainty for state and local education officials. States that opt in to the plan will be forced to dedicate time and limited resources to implement a host of new federal regulations. However, the requirements could be easily changed by Congress, Secretary Duncan, or the next administration, potentially rendering a state’s investment in changing its education system meaningless...

...Making matters worse, the secretary's waiver plan – similar to his ill-fated Race to the Top program – pressures states to adopt common academic standards and tests in reading and math, creating de facto national standards and national tests. This one-size-fits-all approach usurps the power of local superintendents, school boards, and parents who know more about what kids need to learn than bureaucrats in Washington...

...House Education and the Workforce Committee Republicans are determined to fix current education law the right way – with smart legislative policies that will have a lasting impact. Toward that effort, Republicans recently released two pieces of draft legislation to overhaul No Child Left Behind. In addition to provisions that support state-developed accountability systems and a smaller federal footprint in education, the legislation includes four provisions that rein in the authority of the Secretary of Education and preserve state and local control...

...We cannot allow the Obama administration to implement a backdoor education agenda. It’s time to advance real change in our nation’s education system. The Student Success Act and the Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act provide states and school districts with a clear path forward that will help get more effective teachers in the classroom, enhance accountability, and raise the bar on student achievement.

Our Founding Fathers designed our legislative branch to implement and pass policies and to pass the laws which govern our nation- they clearly did not give the President the power to issue directives and orders establishing policies and laws, paid for out a giant slush fund (stimulus dollars, which were supposed to go for shovel ready projects that would put Americans back to work back in 2009). But this is what we have- a President who thinks he is smarter than the American public and their elected Representatives and Senators, and who thinks that he is supposed to be running our nation as a King, ordering his advisers and czars and secretaries to implement policies and rules and waiver plans without any Congressional authority to do so simply because HE believes it to be the right policies. Process and the means matter, and Obama is not going about implementing education policy the right way (with Congressional approval and direction).

Furthermore, by his actions President Obama does not demonstrate that he is any sort of 'friend of education', deserving of one-sided and considerable support by the National Education Association and its various state chapters. Pressuring states to adopt common core standards is the same sort of 'national standards' that the unions opposed so loudly during Bush's administration- the emphasis on national tests is the same sort of 'national testing' that brought howls from unions and magazine articles in education magazines- and the push for merit pay should be met with a storm of opposition by the education labor unions. On these issues and many others, the labor unions have decided to compromise their positions and policy stances so that Barack Obama can remain as President, and by doing so continue to destroy the property tax base and income taxes on which education depends for its funding.

The truth of the matter is that today, perhaps it is the Republican Party which offers the best path forward for public education in America. A rising tide floats all boats, and Republican policies which encourage economic growth- less regulation, more protection of private property, less fees, less red tape and bureaucratic interference, etc- will likely lead to increased tax revenues that will in turn lead to increased funding and money for education. Further, policies designed in the legislative branch and laws passed by our Congress will have more broad consensus and input from more parties and thus be better designed and implemented that dictates issued by an overbearing and close-minded Executive Branch.

Gary Peters is one of the least independent Congressman in Congress, and votes with his party 96% of the time. He does not work with Republicans, he isn't a voice of moderation, and he is not independent. According to his voting record, he is a liberal Democrat who votes the party line almost every time- a reliable vote for the Pelosi/Waxman wing of the Democratic Party.

Recently, The Oakland Press, the local newspaper in the area, wrote the following editorial called "Peters has done some independent thinking", and this prompted me to do some research:

Rep. Gary Peters, D-Bloomfield Township, is not in a very enviable position as a Congressmen. He’s a Democrat from a district that has historically voted Republican. The exact Democrat-Republican split is not known, but it is safe to say that he was elected because of strong support from independent voters. As his first Congressional year ends, we are not going to judge or rate him on his work.

However, The Oakland Press believes you should give credit where credit is due.At times during his very critical and harsh first year in office, Peters has shown that he can break away from the “party-line” and thus think and act independently. Let’s give him credit and kudos for some independent thinking.

This is garbage. According to OpenCongress.org, a non-partisan website set up to track the votes and news about US Congressman, Gary Peters has voted the Democratic Party line 96% of the time, including important votes in favor of the Democratic party line on healthcare, cap-and-tax, stimulus, government-takeovers, and national security. That means that 96 times out of a 100, he has voted Democrat, and only voted with the Republicans 4 times.

The facts- a 96% party line votes- demonstrate that this editorial is pure garbage and that Peters is not an independent voice in Congress or someone who breaks the party line, and I question who wrote it or approved it without doing a little research first.

An 'independent thinker' who 'breaks the party line' votes with the party line 96% of the time? I wonder if The Oakland Press is going to start writing glowing editorials of how independent of a voter Thaddeus McCotter (R, MI-11, 92% party line) is? Or Candice Miller (R, MI-10, 87% party line)? Or Vern Ehlers (R, MI-3, 85% party line)? The only Congressman from Michigan who are less independent and who vote less with the party line are fellow Democrats Sandar Levin (99% party line) and John Dingell (98% party line).

Congressman Peters has sponsored 8 pieces of legislation while in office. They are not 'independent' pieces of legislation that demonstrate his willingness 'to break from the party'. One is to increase taxes (HR 1527). The rest are minor bills requesting tax breaks for favored constituencies or resolutions recognizing various things. Is this what The Oakland Press was raving about? Crossing the aisle to express a sense of Congress for a civil rights activist? Wow.

The Oakland Press ignored his 96% party line vote and his vote on major issues, which is a reliable liberal Democratic vote in favor of bills that even harm his district, and wrote a garbage of an editorial.

Congressman Gary Peters is a solid left-wing liberal, and come 2010, you remember that and vote accordingly.