Right Wing Reform

Is U.S. Global Dominance Destructive?

2009-04-29T14:13:00.000-04:00

“America is a large, friendly dog in a very small room. Every time it wags its tail, it knocks over a chair.”
-Arnold Toynbee

On a global scale, America is the greatest good. America’s desire to do good in the world is unmatched by any other hegemonic force. The author of the text classifies America as a “benign hegemon”. This is a stark contrast from the opposing viewpoint of America as an empire imperializing other nations with their own beliefs. Some of the most important keys to the U.S. being such a positive force are due to the fact that America does not fight religious wars, nor expansionary ones, nor ones driven by capital. America is always seeking to free those who may not be able to free themselves.

From the time of the 20th century, until present day, we have seen America go through a process of warfare that has been completely selfless. The push to liberate Berlin in the Second World War, the effort to liberate South Korea, and the capture of Sadam Hussein, are all examples of liberation from the hands and sacrifice of the United States. This was in order to achieve a greater good in the world, not advance an American agenda.

Leaders around the world often cast America in a negative light. However, during a time of need, the hand they bit usually does the feeding. The author acknowledges this by stating, “In many parts of the world, the United States serves as a convenient scapegoat for governments, a kind of political lighting rod to draw away from themselves the popular discontent that their shortcomings have helped to produce” (pg 50). Many times, America is charged with the fluctuation world economy, and sometimes rightfully so. However, other nations play their parts.

So much good has been done on the part of America in so many areas of the globe. Many of these cases are militarily, as stated by the author. He recognizes that since the Cold War, we have occupied, “…Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq” (pg 47). If one looks back at these instances, though, they were in the name of liberation and freedom across all spectra. The United States occupies nations for one reason, and one reason only – to free those who cannot free themselves.

From a humanitarian aspect, one may argue that the U.S. is liable to help those who cannot help themselves. A common Democratic Party theme is to install these social safety nets for the poor and unfortunate. Well, what about the poor and unfortunate of the world? The U.S.’s military and economic strength put them at a tremendous advantage to do some great things in this world. The author ends the discussion with what should be viewed as an altruistic quote, “About other countries’ approach to America’s remarkable 21st-centruy global role, however, three things may be safely predicted: They will not pay for it, they will continue to criticize it, and they will miss it when it’s gone” (pg 50).

Cited:

Taking Sides: Clashing Views in World Politics. Rourke, John T.

Is Globalization a Positive Trend?

2009-04-27T14:50:00.002-04:00

“The speed of light does not merely transform the world. It becomes the world. Globalization is the speed of light.”
-Paul Virilio

Imagine a world in which you were limited in communication to those who lived in the same region as you. The effects of globalization have had a positive impact worldwide. Not only freedom of capital flow, but also freedom of information flow has greatly increased the value of every single nation’s GDP. The development of technology will always be the leading factor in making the world economically expansionary.

Ronald Reagan once spoke of a shining city on a hill, one that was full of promise. The city’s people didn’t necessarily have an equal result guarantee, but they did have a level playing field. When countries are put on a level playing field, and not burdened with trade restrictions, it benefits each and every participant. The philosophy is one that is known as comparative advantage. As each country searches for their strongest product, it becomes valuable to the rest of the world. For example, the United States, with their technology improvements, educated workforce, and reasonable wages, was once on top in automobile manufacturing. It became very profitable for a long period of time. However, with rising healthcare costs, higher wages, and a closing gap in technology with China and Japan, the United States is close to losing their comparative advantage in auto manufacturing.

Ignorant minds and Marxists would lead everyone to believe that the North-South gap makes globalization an evil threat to the global South. That globalization exploits the South for their natural resources, and they are helpless to do anything about it. Hugo Chavez states, “The countries of the North with 15% of the world population count with over 85% of Internet users and control 97% of the patents. These countries have an average of over 10 years of schooling, while in the countries of the South schooling hardly reaches 3.7 years and in many cases is even lower” (pg 15). Maybe people like Hugo Chavez, guitar player Tom Morello, and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter should step back and realize that without globalization, it would actually be more devastating to Latin American countries, and others of the South. What one really has to keep in mind is that everybody is a consumer in this world. Globalization makes consumers the winners. With competition from every corner of the globe in industries, they are forced to lower prices in order to generate business. So maybe Tom Morello should take a step back from his Rage Against the Machine lifestyle, and realize that the stop of expansion in globalization is only going to give more power to the large corporations and industries that are already established in the world.

Eastern and Western Europe have seen the positive impacts of globalization after the Second World War. Anne Krueger claims that, “In part, the recovery from wartime conditions and growth of GDP spurred trade growth” (pg 8). We have now seen enormous expansions in almost every sector of their economies, from GDP, to per capita GDP, to gross exports and imports. This is all made possible by the expansion of globalization.

Sources:

Taking Sides: Clashing Views in World Politics. Rourke, John T.

Letter: Mountaintop removal coal mining is danger - Voices

2009-04-24T14:24:00.000-04:00

Letter: Mountaintop removal coal mining is danger - Voices

A Sign of the Times

2009-04-13T13:08:00.000-04:00

A Sign of the Times
The United States economy goes through periods of rapid growth, and rapid contraction. In the short history of the U.S., free market capitalism has dominated the marketplace. Recently, we have seen a populous outcry for more regulation, especially on banks. Some policies that have been enacted have done much to expand government power in the economy, and introduce moderate amounts of nationalization and socialism. The American public is very divided on how they want the government to balance regulation and free market principles in weathering this economic storm.

In the first days of October 2008, the Dow Jones Industrial Average evaporated around 20% of the nation’s wealth. Investor confidence waned on news that lending institutions were no longer stable, due to the sub-prime lending market collapse. Mortgage backing giants, and government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, lead the charge of economic uncertainty. The American public was blood thirsty, and wanted to know who was responsible for regulating these industries.

Coming off the back of insolvent banks, George W. Bush authorized $700 billion worth of funds to be allocated to the United States Department of Treasury. Under the command of Hank Paulson, the Treasury Department was to inject liquidity into major baking institutions that were no longer seen as viable. This TARP (troubled assets relief program) plan was a plan to thaw credit markets in order to spur economic development in the short run, and turn into sustainability in the long run.

George W. Bush always touted free market capitalism throughout his 8 years as President. The American public generally accepted capitalism, and his approval numbers did not fluctuate much after the economic collapse. According to Rasmussen Reports, then President Bush’s approval rating was 34% in August 2008, compared with 33% in October of 2008 (Rasmussen 1). In a second poll by Rasmussen Reports, they examined a specific clip of a George Bush speech. “In mid-November, 44% of adults agreed with President Bush’s statement that ‘free-market capitalism is far more than an economic theory. It is the engine of social mobility - the highway to the American Dream.’ Twenty-two percent disagreed, and 33% were undecided” (Rasmussen 2). This demonstrated a plurality of support for capitalism.

Capitalism works by allowing markets to adjust to where they can be sustained. It’s a natural reaction to a simple economic theory of supply and demand. N. Gregory Mankiw compares The Wealth of Nations, a book that was written by Adam Smith, to the Declaration of Independence. He says, “…the two documents share a point of view that was prevalent at the time: Individuals are usually best left to their own devices, without the heavy hand of government guiding their actions” (Mankiw Pg. 11). Mankiw also hits on a point that can pull the U.S.’s capitalistic system out of the current recession. It is the basic economic concept that people respond to incentives (Pg. 9). Once producers lower their prices to where consumers will again be able and willing to purchase said goods, the economy will begin to produce at levels seen before the economic collapse.

Consumer confidence is a key in weathering any economic storm. Consumers must feel comfortable in spending their money, or savings will pile up – leading to smaller amounts of economic output. A recent Gallup Pole suggests that consumers are starting to gain confidence in the economy. 15% of Americans were optimistic about the economy during the first weeks of February, compared with 32% at the end of March (Gallup 1). With this level of up-tick in optimism among consumers, we may see retail markets bounce back, followed by many other sectors of the economy.

Recently, signs of frustration from the American public have come in the form of low support for capitalism. In a recent Rasmussen survey, only 53% of Americans believe capitalism is better than socialism. However, only 20% of respondents said they felt socialism was better than capitalism (Rasmussen 3). This seems to be a gauge of how frustrated the American people are.

Socialism stems from the belief that the government should step in to monitor and regulate businesses and marketplace interactions. The government also plays a larger role in making sure income is evenly distributed throughout the population. Western Europe has fallen into this sort of behavior with their socialized healthcare system. Healthcare is provided for each citizen, regardless of ability to pay for it. Teemed with a progressive tax system, this healthcare is often financed by the upper class. Americans have been reluctant to give the government this much power, due in large part to our founding fathers’ beliefs in a small government that should be restrained by the people.

Partisanship can be a key factor in deciding the attitudes of American citizens in regards to the economy. Typically, the Republican Party is more favored toward free market capitalism, where Democrats favor tougher regulation, and sometimes socialism. Democrats typically believe the government can solve the problem, whereas Republicans often believe government is the problem. In the Rasmussen Reports poll, Republicans favored capitalism 11-to-1 over socialism. Democrats still favored capitalism, but only 39% said it was better than socialism, while 30% supported socialism over capitalism (Rasmussen 3). Independents played their part as well. “As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism” (Rasmussen 3). The key factors of the ideological split in both parties come from each party’s respected leaders. Democrats tend to follow the ideological path of Barack Obama and Barney Frank, who believe that tougher regulations need to be put in place in order to correct the financial systems. Republicans, however, are more divided. Some favor complete free market principles penned by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), where many others believe in a moderately regulated system touted by Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina).

One thing is clear in this situation: the American public is very divided on how they want the government to balance regulation and free market principles in weathering this economic storm. The United States is a country that remains to lean center-right on economic principles, and it shows with some of the wide gaps with independents asked about the capitalism vs. socialism dispute. In conclusion, these polls show that although Americans are reluctant to champion the likes of capitalism in these tough economic times, they are not anywhere near embracing socialism.

References

Gallup. 2009. “Economic Perceptions: Personal vs. National.” Gallup Polls, April 9.

Mankiw, N. Gregory. 2008. Principles of Macroeconomics. Mason, OH; Cengage
Learning.

Rasmussen Reports 1. 2008. “44% Agree: Free-Market Capitalism is Highway to
American Dream.” Rasmussen Reports, November 18.

Rasmussen Reports 2. 2009. “President Bush Job Approval.” Rasmussen Reports,
January 5.

Rasmussen Reports 3. 2009. “Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism.”
Rasmussen Reports, April 9.

One Picture

2009-03-27T11:53:00.002-04:00

I think this just about sums up a lot of things. Here's to you, Messiah.

Obama Gaffes the Special Olympics

2009-03-21T00:35:00.003-04:00

In a week that has Americans questioning executive bonuses being handed out to insurance giant AIG employees, Barack Obama has found himself in even more hot water. As if it wasn't enough that we've heard Tim Geithner and the Obama Administration may have known, or even written into the stimulus package, about the executive bonuses, President Obama decided to walk on stage with comedian Jay Leno late Thursday night. It marked the first visit to a late night comedy show by any sitting President, and now Barack Obama may have been wishing to go back into history and give up that seat. In an offhand comment, President Obama compared his less than stellar bowling skills to those who participate in the Special Olympics.

The exact comment was captured in this CNN article:

While joking on The Tonight Show about his bowling prowess (during last year's campaign trail he shamefully scored 37 in a game), Obama said he'd been practicing at the White House.

He told Leno that he bowled 129 in the White House bowling alley and said his bowling skills are "like Special Olympics or something."

This is what struck up the controversy. Now, this blog is not used to smear the President, but it is used to speak out against policies we may disagree with. Especially those that create roadblocks for ingenuity and long-term prosperity.

Right Wing Reform believes that although what Barack Obama said was utterly inappropriate and disrespectful - these things happen. We understand that Mr. Obama was referring to his own bowling skills, and not purposely trying to humiliate anyone. But what we are outraged about is the attitude coming out of the left-wing media. MSNBC buried the story on their website this morning and CNN had it with the less important stories. What we want to know here at Right Wing Reform is this:

What if George W. Bush had made this remark? You can rest assured Keith Olbermann and the left-wing elite would have sounded their political correctness horns and circled their limousines to do some hard hitting smear journalism the way they know best.

Just something to think about.

Stock Market Balks on Big Moves

2009-03-09T16:20:00.002-04:00

At around 11AM today, President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order reversing the Bush Administration's ban on federal funding for stem cell research. I am not going to use this forum to voice my opinion of this policy, rather, I want it to resinate with people how shocked I am that the market didn't really move on this information. On a day that I expected to see an explosion of investment in pharmaceuticals and stem cell companies, the market simply yawned. Let's dig into a couple of the big moves that took place today.

The market opened strong for stem cell companies today with President Obama's executive order. Stocks such as Advanced Cell Technology, INC., Cord Blood America, INC., and Stem Cells INC., all saw gains of around 80% by mid-trading day. However, the powerful voice of Barack Obama after his John Hancock presentation seemed to drag down these surging stock prices. Closing rates were between +25%-+40%. This is seen as a very modest gain for such a huge announcement. Many day traders were counting on these stocks for some added revenue.

Another move that should have helped pharmaceutical companies was a merger between Merck & Co. and Schering-Plough. This deal was worth $41.1 billion in cash and stock. However, Merck closed at 20.99 (-7.7%), while Schering-Plough closed at 20.13 (+14.8%).

Finally, a topic that hits home for me and many Michiganders. Dow Chemical Co. settled their merger deal with Rohm & Haas. This new sense of stability should have reassured investors to go out and purchase Dow stock - but it didn't. Dow saw losses tally up throughout the day. This stock should be a very solid long-term investment, but who knows when it will pick up again. It closed at 6.33 (-10.97%).

In closing, it's hard to tell when we will find the bottom of this market. The market rests, right now, at the same resting points it settled at in the 90s. Some say this points to a mushy bottom of the market, but nobody can be sure. It seems that if we were at the bottom, these stocks would have taken off today with the big news they were surrounded with.

An Inconvenient Assessment of the Economy

2009-03-05T21:21:00.001-05:00

It’s no secret that Wall Street has ripped into a new era of ups and downs over the past few months, and most of them have been downs. It sets the table for a new era of government growth and intervention in all areas of the private sector. Gone are the days of security pension plans and 2-year investment plans. With the explosion in the form of lost capital, the economy is hurting. The housing bubble didn’t simply pop; it blew up and left chunks of toxic assets rippling through every major mortgage lender, and two major mortgage backers (Fannie and Freddie). Every time BHO talks, and every time Tim ‘Turbo Tax’ Geithner (phrase courtesy of Mike Huckabee) unveils a new plan, the stocks take a huge hit. Investors have little confidence in the government running anything, let alone one of the biggest banks in the world, Citigroup, or the largest insurance group on the planet, AIG.

The failure of TARP to adequately inject liquidity into the loanable funds market has basically redistributed water from the deep end to the shallow end – that is, a lot of work has been done for a seemably unsuccessful cause from the start. Credit markets are tightening and seizing up from the lack of confidence banks have in returns. As banks roll back investment opportunities, less projects are being undertaken – leaving less services for American companies to provide. As Bush attempted to kick-start the loanable funds market with TARP, the Obama Administration has the benefit of seeing that it didn’t do enough to impact the financial markets. Now, even though he voted for the package, he’s retracting his beliefs of “give-aways” to what he sees as corrupt Wall Street players and thugs. Bailouts now come with a czar who can appoint and release company higher-ups as he or she chooses. This leads to government-run companies, or Nationalization.

Nationalization will unload a frenzy of government intervention with giant corporations such as Citigroup, AIG, Lehman Bros., Goldman Sachs, and others. The appointment of a czar by Tim Geithner is laughable since Mr. Geithner can’t even get a deputy Treasury Secretary to work for him. The plan is to divide up the assets of Citigroup from good and bad, and then redeposit them into a “good bank” and “bad bank”. The government will then baby-sit the toxic assets in order to get them off the market. This leads to the grandfather effect of pampering those home mortgage borrowers who got in over their heads.

A fundamental split has eroded the chambers of the House and Senate. The party of Ronald Reagan seems to be on a rebound, while the party of JFK and William Jefferson Clinton seem to be turning to the party of FDR, LBJ, and Karl Marx. The GOP is taking a ‘no taxpayer left behind’ approach recently, with their clear stand against the neoliberal spending programs put forth by the Obama Administration, and written by Nancy Pelosi.

In the end, two things could perceivably rise to the top. One, you have the stock market reject nationalization and so with it you see an outpouring of tax payer money flow into once-private firms such as the groups listed above. This would mark the death of Citigroup, but also the Obama Administration – sending him to a one-term presidency. Two, you could see a complete restructuring of the capitalism as we know it – one that resembles socialistic nationalization of major investment firms and banks. There could be a short-term ‘finance bubble’ that speaks of prosperity, but reeks of false numbers and overregulation on investment firms, causing a government intervened reinvestment of wealth. This would lead to an overwhelming reelection for President Obama, even though it will eventually be the laying of our economic grave when that bubble pops.

Why I'm A Republican

2009-02-23T22:21:00.001-05:00

A Macro Problem

2009-02-23T17:58:00.001-05:00

Should All Foreign Troops Soon Leave Iraq?

2009-02-23T14:45:00.000-05:00

A Democratic Agenda
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
-Winston Churchill

A common philosophy of the Democratic Party is to help those who cannot help themselves. They feed this hunger by creating welfare programs, Medicaid, and food stamps. They would often argue that many are less fortunate, and cannot break the shackles of poverty and despair. This is why it seems so contradicting that the Democratic Party is the loudest to say foreign troops should leave Iraq before the job is finished.

Let me be clear. The subject of this debate is almost irrelevant now, due to the agreement the United States has to withdraw troops by 2011. However, it is important to note that the job is not quite over in Iraq – and all foreign troops should not leave Iraq. Iraq is about much more than weapons of mass destruction, oil, or Saddam Hussein. Iraq is about advancing the cause of freedom, of hope, and of equality for all. A living, breathing, democracy in the heart of the middle east would be a superb icon for all those seeking freedom from tyranny. Since 2003, we have made huge strides in Iraq in order to spread peace.

Former Vice-President Richard Cheney said that, “The political leaders of Iraq are steady and courageous, and the citizens, police and soldiers of that country have proudly stepped forward as active participants and guardians in a new democracy – running for office, speaking out, voting and sacrificing for their country”(Rourke pg. 111). This drives home the fact that Iraq is willing to make it on their own, which is a pivotal mindset. Progress cannot be made with a country that depends upon the United States for defense.

Following the release of Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush and General Patreas drafted up a new plan in Iraq. The initial attack on Iraq proved to not be as smooth as what was expected. The United States couldn’t just flex their muscle and take out all of the insurgents in one swoop. This lead to extremely high violence rates, and what looked to be a hopeless and endless war. However, when President Bush and Gen. Patreas drafted up the new strategy for a “surge” in Iraq – the liberal media elite laughed it off, and with the support of democrats in congress, they nearly buried the plan. However, President Bush stuck to his conviction and delivered a game changing strategy in Iraq. It wasn’t the easy choice, or the popular one, but one thing is clear – it worked. Sectarian violence in Iraq is down over 5-fold form last year, and 10-fold from this time two years ago. The surge has produced elevated troop presence, and has allowed the U.S. to train more Iraqi police officers.

Cheney also said that, “…when [the war] is concluded, we will be a safer nation” (pg. 111). It is no secret that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous man. If one wants to debate this statement, just ask the Kurdish community. With the gassing of over 100,000 Kurds in the sands of Iraq, let alone the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam had proven his disregard for equality amongst Kurds and Arabs. A mad man in control of a territory full of unrepentant terrorists is a security threat to many nations. Cheney was very accurate when he talked of making America a safer nation. I believe that much of our actions as a country in a post 9/11 world have more fully protected not only our own freedoms – but those of many around the world.

College Republicans Press Drama

2009-02-18T21:46:00.003-05:00

The College Republicans issued a press release that I wrote on Friday, February 13th. It was about the College Republicans being opposed to the Stimulus Package. Here it is, in full:

Stimulus Is Waste

The College Republicans at Central Michigan University stand completely opposed to the economic stimulus package recently approved by both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate.

While few will say the government should stand back and do nothing in this time of economic uncertainty, we feel the package as it stands does not efficiently create jobs in an adequate proportion to dollars spent.

The past eight years have not been fiscally conservative years for the U.S. However, this continuation of hasty bailouts and wasteful spending rushed through Congress is hardly the "change we need."

The nation still leans center-right, so the free market is in the hearts of most citizens. Now is the time to stick to our free-market principles rather than give in to the nationalization of banks and financial institutions to follow the likes of Western European Socialism.

Then, a few responses were issued.

Editor's note: This letter is in response to the Feb. 13 letter "Stimulus is waste" from the College Republicans spokeswoman.

First, the College Republicans spokeswoman asserts that the stimulus "does not efficiently create adequate jobs." Both she and the Republicans in Congress need to shed their partisan blinders to the real world. In real life, the Bush tax cuts did nothing but make the disparity between rich and poor greater - and now Republicans want even more tax cuts.

Then, she (almost comically) goes on to assert that America is a "center-right" country. Does she not realize Democrats have had a partisan party ID advantage for generations? In the 2008 elections, Democrats trounced Republicans in the House and picked up a whopping eight seats in the Senate to bring their total to 59 seats (the Minnesota senate race will be settled soon with Al Franken as the winner).

Let's also not forget that Republicans picked the most moderate Republican in the Senate, decorated war hero John McCain, as the their presidential candidate, yet still got beaten by a full seven points in the presidential election by "socialist" Barack Obama.

Brad O'Donnell
Clinton Township sophomore

Why is the word "socialism" thrown around haphazardly as a scare tactic by Republicans?

Why is this word used illusively to describe the forbidden path of American politics? As a last-minute ploy in the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican candidates John McCain and Sarah Palin touted this word ad nauseam in reference to Barack Obama. Now, this tactic is being used by our own College Republicans as a divisive measure to steer people away from the real intent of the current stimulus package.

If we really want to bring up this idea of socialism, we can. But first, let's lay down the facts about this political philosophy that has had America distraught for more than 60 years. Contrary to popular American beliefs, socialism is not synonymous with totalitarianism or dictatorship. In fact, it is not this scary idea that people make it out to be. Socialism simply advocates for more government intervention when necessary.

Since the College Republicans carelessly used Western Europe as an example of socialism, let's look closely to see what this really entails. Most European countries have an active socialist party - and for good reason. Socialism in Europe takes form in universal health care. In France, this system covers nearly 100 percent of all citizens. This has contributed to France's distinction of providing the best overall health care in the world, as determined by the World Health Organization.

Germany's system of health care provides coverage for 85 percent of its citizens. Scotland's "socialist" health care system guarantees dissolution of all prescription drug charges by 2011. Because of this, nearly all "socialist" countries in Western Europe have healthier citizens with higher life expectancies.

Even Canada is included in this, providing coverage for 95 percent of its citizens, contributing to an average life expectancy of more than 80 years.

For comparison purposes, only 60 percent of American citizens are covered by the complex system of health insurance in the United States, ranking it 37th for quality health care and 45th for life expectancy. Furthermore, Republicans have no place in the current economic climate to belittle any measures that attempt to fix the mess that they created. It is their repudiated policies and lack of regulation that drove us into the economic sinkhole.

Affirming the same "trickle-down" system that created this financial disaster is like asking the American people to succumb to the overreaching power of the wealthy who have controlled our "free market" for years - all because they are afraid of becoming "socialist."

Surely the College Republicans would not advocate against Social Security, Medicaid, the Federal Work Study program, Direct Loans and Pell Grants, all of which are forms of American "socialism." Inasmuch as the College Republicans "stand united against" the current stimulus package, I'm sure we can count on them all to return the $2,500 tuition tax credit they will receive under the terms of this bill.

After all, they should return those funds in the name of distancing themselves from the evil "socialism" they publicly decry.

Tyler Morkin

Tonight, I responded in a letter to the CM-Life. It remains to be seen if it will be published. Here it is:

This is in response to the CM-Life article published called "Do not use 'socialism' to scare people."

It's laughable that the individual accuses Republicans of using socialism "...as a scare tactic..." as our current Democratic President uses the word "crises" dozens of times in each speech to reflect the state of our economy in order to gain more and more power in the private sector. It is no secret that Barack Obama's own Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, has been witnessed saying to "...never let a crisis go to waste..." in order to gain political power.

If one wants to debate the realm of socialism, let's dig a little deeper into the subject than our predecessor. Our writer used Social Security as an example in social programs in the United States. Well, I would challenge our writer to show us how Social Security is supposed to last when the government has borrowed every last penny from it. Failure number one on the government's part. I would also challenge our writer to show us how well Fannie May and Freddie Mac, both government sponsored enterprises, were maintained. Failure number two. Also, let us dive into the United States Postal Service. The mail arm of the government seems to be running a deficit, while their top member makes twice the salary of the United States President. They also said that we would never be able to overnight a package to anywhere in the United States. This is where the private sector kicked in in the form of UPS and FedEx who now regularly overnight packages all over the world. Failure number three.

So, pardon me for not wanting the United States Government to run anything in my life. What ever happened to the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution? What ever happened to personal responsibility? Free market capitalism is the greatest economic system in the world. It allows for the markets to adjust to natural equilibrium prices. Crises happen when the Government over-regulates and/or ignores sectors running amuck.

John Porter
Coleman Freshman

A Picture is Worth 1,000 Words

2009-02-18T15:17:00.001-05:00

These people are as clueless as they look.

Fire Dennis Lennox

2009-02-09T18:34:00.002-05:00

So here at Central Michigan University a few names stand out in a crowd. Dennis Lennox is definitely among the most popular. Lennox has had his share of controversies over the years as a student at CMU, and as he moves on to his life outside the university - he's making a splash for himself still. Lennox won his election this fall as drain commissioner in Cheboygan County, Michigan. This county hasn't had a drain since WWII, so he ran on a platform of abolishing the position. He features a website known as firedennis.com and even made an appearance on Fox News today.

I Love Lindsay Graham

2009-02-07T13:43:00.001-05:00

Happy Birthday, President Reagan

2009-02-06T22:04:00.003-05:00

This is a small tribute to who I would call one of the greatest Presidents of all time - perhaps the greatest. Today would be President Reagan's 98th Birthday.

Ronald Reagan knew how to communicate, and use humor.

But it wasn't always fun.

However, he always came back stronger.

Reagan had a number of pivotal moments. None, however, were as big of a staple as this.

February 5 in 100 Seconds

2009-02-06T00:11:00.000-05:00

Is This the Same Daschle

2009-02-05T20:16:00.003-05:00

Is this the Tom Daschle you and I know?

I wish...

The Agenda

2009-01-28T23:45:00.000-05:00

Who Gets It?

2009-01-27T20:11:00.001-05:00

Obamanation

2009-01-22T16:53:00.000-05:00

Too often times we're faced with moments of decision and they become wasted to the histories as missed opportunities. Some make an exception. Reagan did it after his famous line "...there you go again..." to Jimmy Carter. He presided over an enormous economic expansion while in the midst of an arms race with the Soviet Union. He ordered the fall of the Berlin Wall. Truman did not stand idly by when America was attacked at Pearl Harbor. Lincoln did not calmly allow the Confederates to succeed from the Union. Kennedy did not allow the Soviet Union to stockpile nuclear weapons in Cuba.

These men had courage.

Courage is hard to define. Does a man shape history with his courage, or does history shape the man? Was Hitler a sociopath because of Germany, or was Germany a sociopathic nation because of Hitler? These questions will never be answered in facts. Historians and philosophers will debate them through the ages.

What does not take courage is campaign rhetoric. It doesn't take courage to tell the people what they want to hear, or tell the people about your unrealistic goals. It takes courage the tell the truth, not because it is easy - but because it is right. Barack Obama was elected on a platform of unrealistic promises. Energy independence will not come in the next 4 or 8 years, and it won't come without two important things President Obama has stood against: nuclear energy, and offshore drilling. We will not balance our budget in the next 4 years, we will increase deficit spending with enormous government works programs aimed to please those who voted President Obama into office.

Here are some things President Obama will do. He will increase oversight in the private sector. He will stifle business with overregulation and protocol. Corporate tax rates will restrict growth and cause large businesses to scale back to deal with rising labor cost, minimum wage, and increased progressive tax rates. President Obama will offer tax credits to those who choose to invest their money how he sees fit. However, this will not help the middle class like he has promised. In the next 4 years the middle class will not be buying hybrid cars. In the next 4 years the middle class will not be investing in alternative energy sources. More importantly, in the next 4 years the middle class might not even be able to send their kids to college. Restoring the middle class in America will come due to a loss of wealth, causing those in the upper 5% to slip back down. Under GWB there has been an increase in tax revenue by 20%, even though tax rates have been cut. There was such a creation of wealth that part of the middle class rocketed up to new heights - making them pass into a higher tax bracket.

This may be change, but it's hardly the "Change We Need".

Signing off.

Palin, Treasure

2009-01-20T10:11:00.001-05:00

CM-Life Article

2009-01-16T01:11:00.000-05:00

I had an interview published in the CM-Life today. Check it out. If you want to skip to my interview, go to the end of the article.

Enjoy!

President George W. Bush's farewell speech Thursday was his final opportunity to shape his legacy.

The 43rd president of the United States chose spreading peace abroad and fighting terrorism as his main messages, although he said there are things he would have changed.

"There are things I would do differently if given the chance," he said. "Yet, I have always acted with the best interests of our country in mind. I have followed my conscience and done what I thought was right."

Bush warned Americans that the nation will face more challenges, but expressed his confidence in its ability to overcome them.

The president rejected isolationist policies and encouraged the nation to continue the fight for freedom and democracy around the world.

"This nation must continue to speak out for justice and truth," he said. "Advancing this belief is the only practical way to protect our citizens."

Bush noted the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the transformation of the military, the intelligence community and FBI, a new Medicare program and the bailout among his accomplishments as president.

The once-Texas governor noted changing the Afghanistan and Iraq governments to democracies as other successes of his presidency.

"There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions," he said. "But there can be little debate about the results."

The President acknowledged those who disagreed with many decisions he made, but hoped they would agree he made tough decisions.

Serving the nation as president was an honor, Bush said, but the title of "citizen of the United States of America" means more to him than any other.

Aside from molding his legacy, Bush wished President-elect Barack Obama good luck, saying his presidency is "a moment of hope and pride for our whole nation."

Student Reaction

Central Michigan University students have had mixed reactions about Bush's eight-year tenure.

Caro junior Zachary Raymer and Waterford senior Kyle Gentges find Bush to be an inadequate president, and neither agreed with his decision to invade Iraq.

"I don't really think he knew what he was doing," Gentges said. "After 9/11, we started going after Iraq and Iraq got in the way of catching Osama bin Laden."

Raymer said the economic bailout was a necessary decision, but does not like how it has been handled.

"There has not been enough oversight with what we've done with the money," he said.

Instead of throwing the money at the problem, Raymer said, the money should have been used to create jobs and investments that will pay off in the long run.

Coleman freshman John Porter, a member of the College Republicans, said Bush's speech was honest and sober. He praised Bush's honesty, even though many people may not have agreed with his policies.

"We cannot question the man's integrity and honesty," he said.

Porter thought Bush's greatest accomplishment was preventing a terrorist attack for seven and a half years.

Porter said Bush's expanded AIDS treatments in Africa were another great accomplishment.

"No one has ever done more for the continent of Africa than George W. Bush," he said.

Bush was put into an unprecedented situation, Coleman said, and dealt with it well.

"His record speaks for itself. He saw 54 months of job growth... even Barack Obama can't change some of Bush's policies," he said.

Blago, Clinton, Reid

2009-01-12T23:51:00.000-05:00

A Compassionate Conservative

2009-01-11T00:30:00.000-05:00

This is a new blog for what some may call a new idea. This is a new blog for a new direction for the Republican Party. If you're sick of Congressional Republicans being elected on a platform that stands for smaller government, less wasteful spending, and strong moral values, and then reneging on their promises - help us reform.

If you're tired of liberals throwing away our tax dollars to Wall Street and out of touch automobile manufacturers, help us lead again.

If you're tired of Chicago politicians getting thrown in jail, stand with us to end it!

If you're tired of Congressmen being put behind bars for molesting children...

If you're tired of affirmative action encouraging reverse discrimination...

If you're tired of the growth of government control and duty...

If you're tired of the gap of marginal tax rates...

If you're tired of the increase of federal handouts...

Read my blog, share my blog, write your own blog. If you don't agree with me, argue with me. If you do agree with me, let me and the other readers know it! Say something, get involved, get your hands dirty.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
-George Washington