In 1992, President Clinton defeated incumbent President George Bush, Sr. using a campaign slogan cleverly devised by his campaign strategist, James Carville. At a time when the president had decisive foreign policy victories ranging from the end of the Cold War to the Persian Gulf War, Bush seemed impossible to beat. However, then-candidate Clinton was able to refocus the campaign on the 1991 recession with four simple words:
It’s the economy, stupid. Continue reading
Over the past several decades, poverty has decreased the world over. Many people, however, are unaware of this face. Moreover, American citizens are equally unaware of where the credit for this progress belongs. Much of the credit for this achievement belongs to the principles of economic freedom associated with American democracy. The much-maligned American political right has largely been responsible for championing these freedoms, with President Ronald Reagan’s achievements deserving particular credit.
However, the news for America is not all good. The “wrong” in the title, refers to the more recent drift away from (and in some cases, outright abandonment of) the principles of economic freedom that spurred American historical progress. There are many causes for this drift from America’s principles, with plenty of blame to go around. America’s problems span multiple facets: education, demographics, fiscal irresponsibility, undue political influence of special interests, an overly intrusive government, and others. This post will investigate and show evidence for examples of this drift. It will also propose some solutions.
Conservative principles offer an effective solution to the problems America currently faces, but conservative thinkers and leader have not effectively communicated the narrative regarding the drivers that brought the nation to where it currently stands nor have they effectively advocated the right’s solutions. That conservatives can and should better articulate this narrative is the essential thesis of this post. Continue reading
Change in Total Private Employment (in thousands), Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Update: Click here for the most recent jobs statistics.
On the first Friday of every month, I update the unemployment numbers so that I can compare the unemployment rate under President George W. Bush with the unemployment rate under President Obama at that time. The genesis of this ritual began when I felt compelled to respond to some left-leaning sites that were comparing Obama’s first two years and four months in office with Bush’s last and worst economic year (the above chart shows the most recent incarnation of this narrative).
With the Republican primary constantly in the news, and with the Presidential election rapidly approaching, I thought I would open a debate about military and public service. When looking at the President, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul, only Ron Paul served in the military (briefly and as a doctor). Moreover, none of them are combat veterans. That said, there are still a handful of World War II and Vietnam veterans serving in Congress. There are also a handful of veterans of the War on Terror serving in the House of Representatives. Notably, several of them are combat veterans (including Representatives Duncan Hunter, Christopher Gibson, and Allen West to name a few).
I have been trained and employed as both an Army officer and a lawyer. When I compare my education and experiences in each of these positions, I see the legal profession exhibiting very little leadership. In contrast, I feel like the Army taught me how to be a leader and a decision-maker. Furthermore, the Army taught me how to work as a team, and how to put the needs of my subordinates before my own. Another important concept I learned as an Army officer was to choose “the harder right.” This concept means that the correct decision is not always the easiest or most popular one. Today, as our leaders in Washington deal with serious fiscal issues, it seems our politicians could learn from military officers about choosing “the harder right”. The “harder right” may not always help a politician secure a job after leaving office or it may not lead to reelection. But, it could help the country. Continue reading
Obamacare remains deeply unpopular among Americans. According to a recent New York Times / CBS News poll, two-thirds of Americans want the Supreme Court to overturn at least some part of the healthcare law.
Today, arguments opened at the Supreme Court regarding the Affordable Care Act. In six hours of hearings over three days (the longest in forty-five years), the Court will hear oral arguments on four separate issues with the Act. Ezra Klein does an excellent job of outlining the four issues and what each side is likely to argue. Most importantly, the Court will hear arguments on the least popular aspect of the bill, the individual mandate requiring Americans to purchase healthcare insurance, tomorrow.
In my opinion, this provision of the law has the highest probability of actually lowering costs. It does so by expanding the overall insurance risk pool. Without it, the insurance industry would have to contend with the classic economics problem of adverse selection, in which only the unhealthiest people sign up for healthcare coverage. Without the individual mandate, the law is dead on arrival.
The only wrinkle is that a law mandating that Americans purchase a product may stand on dubious constitutionality. In my view, I think pragmatism ought to prevail in this case. In other words, the problem of bringing down the spiraling costs of healthcare justifies the individual mandate.
Either way, the Court will decide the law’s constitutionality in the near future. It should be interesting to watch.
Today, a conservative advocacy group launched the previous ad to coincide with President Obama’s two-day tour promoting his energy policy. The ad contains a number of data points that lend credence to the right’s view that President Obama’s energy policy is primarily responsible for high gasoline prices.
That said, is President Obama really primarily responsible for these increases?
The left would likely retort that prices are high not because of Obama’s energy policies, but despite them. Many liberals would further contend that financial speculators are primarily to blame for these increases.
While I have a definitive view on this topic, I thought it might be more interesting to have readers debate the issue in the comment section, as well as register their views in the following poll.
I’m looking forward to a very active and lively debate.
Back in December, I posted an article on the Writers of the Future Contest, and then provided an update earlier this month once contest participants started receiving rejections. As of today, I have both good news and bad news. The good news is that I estimate that the contest has already sent out between 44% and 53% of the contest’s form rejections. The bad news is that those who have survived this far (including me) still have an 80-83% chance of receiving a rejection notice before the contest is over. What follows is my analysis of the most recent Duotrope data.
“I believe this country was founded on a simple idea: that every person deserves to be treated fairly, by each other and by their government.”
Really?
Several years ago, Joseph P. Kennedy III’s father conspired with Citgo Oil, a Venezuelan state-run petroleum company, and, indirectly, with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez to provide cheap fuel for America’s poor. While Joseph P. Kennedy II’s plan to provide free fuel oil to poor Americans certainly had noble intentions, the ends do not justify the means. Wittingly or unwittingly and despite his good intentions, Joseph P. Kennedy II was a stooge. He furthered a foreign dictator’s interests by advancing Chávez’s anti-American propaganda efforts.
Some might call that treason.
While Joseph P. Kennedy III should bear no responsibility for his father’s actions, he does deserve censure for defending them. In an interview today, the political scion’s defense for his father’s actions was as follows:
In essence, Kennedy is rallying to his clan rather than to his flag. At least, I hope he considers the American flag his own, considering the side on which he puts himself in this argument. In defending his father, he engages in the following tactics:
Whose side is this guy on?
Kennedy is running for Congressional Representative, not Kennedy clan apologist. He would do well to remember that.
The choice is clear:
Voters in Massachusetts’ Fourth Congressional District can choose either an entitled apologist for his family and that family’s inexcusable collusion with a foreign dictator, or they can choose a military veteran who raised himself up by his own bootstraps like Sean Bielat.
Change in Total Private Employment (in thousands), Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Update: Click here for the most recent jobs statistics.
On the first Friday of every month, I update the unemployment numbers so that I can compare the unemployment rate under President George W. Bush with the unemployment rate under President Obama at that time. The genesis of this ritual began when I felt compelled to respond to some left-leaning sites that were comparing Obama’s first two years and four months in office with Bush’s last and worst economic year (the above chart shows the most recent incarnation of this narrative).
A Michigan woman, Amanda Clayton, recently made headlines for winning one million dollars. She made headlines again for continuing to accept government assistance after she cashed the check.
What’s her excuse?
Did she think she deserved “$200 a month in state food assistance”?
“I kind of do. I have no income, and I have bills to pay. I have two houses.”
Ross Douthat Charles Krauthammer
Reflections of a Rational Republican 