As a patriotic American, who values the constitution and the freedoms that we all enjoy, I am displeased with the direction in which the Obama Administration is moving the country. Other presidents have inflicted harm on the economy - examples include Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” programs, that provided incentives for poor people to become permanent dependents of the State, and the Carter Administration’s stagflation and expansion of federal bureaucracies. His Departments of Education and Energy have continued to expand while our education system has continued to deteriorate and our dependence on foreign sources of energy has continued to worsen.
President Obama and the party in control of Congress are spending at levels not seen since World War II. Under this administration, the budget deficit is set to reach a level of $1.8 trillion ($1.80 followed by twelve zeroes) this year with further deficits averaging $1 trillion a year for the next decade. That equates to $6,000 this year for every man, woman and child in the United States, and upwards of $3000 more for each of the next ten years. These numbers don’t include the cost of his health care plan, estimated to cost another trillion over the next decade.
One of the administration’s first acts was the enactment of the so-called Stimulus Package, which was rushed through Congress without sufficient deliberation. The package cost almost $1 trillion, much of it for political payoffs to favored constituencies. We were told at the time that there wasn’t time to deliberate the plan, because it was urgently needed to arrest the increase in unemployment. To date, less than ten percent of the money has been spent and unemployment has continued to escalate.
This was followed fairly closely by House approval of Cap and Trade, which is intended to reduce carbon emissions, thought by some to cause global warming. This legislation will surely create onerous new taxes on everyone who uses energy if approved by the Senate.
His administration is purposefully destroying the free market system, which has made us the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. He has started by seizing control of the banks, continued with the auto companies, and now he is attempting to take over the health care system, which presently accounts for 17% of our economy.
He has circumvented the law to give preferences to his favored constituencies. In the auto bailouts and bankruptcies the administration gave the UAW a much larger share of the settlement than the secured creditors, who are entitled by law to be compensated first. In the case of Chrysler, the UAW received 55% of the company, while bondholders received pennies on the dollar. Many of these creditors were retirees, who depend on their pension funds, workers investing for their retirements, and ordinary people.
To oversee his vast acquisition of power, he has installed over 24 unelected administrators to date: a Bailout Czar, an Auto Recovery Czar, a Pay Czar, a Green Jobs Czar, and many others. These Czars are presidential appointees who have absolute power in their area of authority, require no confirmation by the Senate and are accountable only to the president. I can’t imagine why Republicans are upset.
I recently attended a Dingell Town Hall meeting on Healthcare. When I got into the building about 40 minutes before the meeting was to have started, the meeting room was at capacity, and the line went the length of the building and part way back. I talked to many of the people there. They seemed to be ordinary people who were upset about the rush to enact another bill that nobody had read. Most of the people that I talked to had read part of the bill, and most had read interpretations of the bill. They knew what their concerns were, and they were well prepared to discuss them. There was no angry mob. I object to that characterization by the liberals and the state controlled media.
I have been through two interpretations of HR3200 and have read much of the bill. There are provisions of the bill that say one thing in one section, and the opposite in some other section. It is impossible to determine what the bill's position is on many of the issues that we are concerned about, because the language is vague, or contradictory, or both, and will, in the end, be interpreted by bureaucrats.
It is my opinion that Mr. Dingell did a disservice to his constituency, when he implied that their concerns were the result of their ignorance. After all, he said many times, “I wrote the bill”. The next day he admitted to Frank Beckman that he’s read only parts of it. If the liberals are getting unnerved by the fact that conservatives are speaking up for a change, that’s just too bad.