You are on page 1of 63

CRNC Research Compendium

September 2010

Editor: Brandon Greife, Political Director

College Republican National Committee 600 Pennsylvania Ave, SE Ste. 215 Washington, DC 20003 T 202-608-1411 F 202-608-1429
www.collegerepublicans.org
College Republican National Committee

Table of Contents

Obama’s Proposed Hike on Investment Taxes Will Slow Recovery! 4

Voter Shift Towards Conservatism Has Enormous Electoral Implications! 5

The President Should Follow His Own Advice and “Wake Up”! 6

GOP’s Young Guns: Not Your Father’s Republican Party! 7

CEOs: Obama’s Anti-Business Rhetoric Dampening Job Growth! 9

Down Big Before Election Day – Democrats Tossing Up Hail Mary’s ! 10

Republicans’ Pledge Shows Return to Common Sense May be the Greatest Reform of All! 13

Obama’s Campus Tour Finding College Conservatism on the Rise! 15

In Tax Cut Debate Democrats Put Self-Preservation Over Public Good! 17

Republicans’ Healthcare “Pledge” Shows Understanding of Obamacare’s Flaws! 18

Republican’s Pledge Accomplishes More By Doing Less! 20

Poll Finds Republicans Better Represent Voter’s Values! 21

Obamacare’s Six Month Anniversary Passes With Little Fanfare! 23

Special message to the College Republican from Congressman Jeff Miller! 24

The Recession is Over – But Under Obama’s Policies High Unemployment is Not! 26

100 Recovery Act Projects That Are Changing America (For the Worse)! 28

Krugman’s Baseless Attack On Wealth Highlights Liberals’ Flaw! 30

September Research Compendium! 1


College Republican National Committee

Obama’s Big Spending Agenda Ruined Relationship With Young Adults! 31

Economists Agree – Extend the Tax Cuts. So Why Aren’t Dems Listening?! 32

All Politics is Local, But for Democrats Debt Problems Exist Nationwide! 33

A Debt That Threatens Our Future! 35

Lessons from Fidel? Cuba Looks to Private Sector to Escape Recession! 36

Greece or the U.K. – How Will the U.S. Respond to Austerity?! 37

Intel CEO Has Harsh Words for Obama’s Economic Plans ! 39

Obama Declares Combat Missions Have Ended But Danger Remains! 40

Dems Stifle Criticism, Promote False Picture of Obamacare! 41

Democratic Candidates Saying Whatever The Voters Want to hear! 42

United States Falls in Annual Global Competitiveness Report! 43

More Democrats Fighting Obama Administration’s Planned Tax Increase! 45

New Report Finds Obamacare Raises Premiums and Adds to Deficit! 47

Obama’s Attempt to Cast John Boehner as the Villain Fall Flat! 48

Japan and US: Two Innovators Bound to Same Fate! 49

Obama Denies Bipartisan Compromise on Tax Cuts! 50

Michigan’s Conservative Leaders Speak Out to College Republicans! 52

In Face of Dismal Polls, Democrats Running Away From Washington! 52

Trying the Same Thing But Expecting Different Results! 53

Florida’s Conservative Leaders Praise Youth Involvement! 55

Obama Peddling More Failed Stimulus! 55

Obama’s New Tax Write-Off A Step in the Right Direction! 56

September Research Compendium! 2


College Republican National Committee

Democrats’ Breach of Trust Could Lead to Big November Losses! 57

Obama’s Economic Speech Heavy on Rhetoric, Light on Solutions! 59

New Poll Finds Obamacare Popularity in Tailspin – Taking Dems November Chances With It!60

September Research Compendium! 3


College Republican National Committee

Obama’s Proposed Hike on Investment Taxes Will Slow Recovery


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

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

This is leading to a number of problems. First, to avoid being penalized for their productivity,
corporations are allocating their capital to less productive areas. A stagnating and inefficient economy is
not exactly the road to success. Second, it will reduce the size of the American economic pie. As the
Wall Street Journal explains,
Think of the economy as a pie split among workers, savers and the government, with the
government’s slice fixed. The savers’ slice will equal the after-tax return on each unit of the
capital stock, and what’s left goes to workers as after-tax wages. The fairness advocates in
effect claim that low tax rates on dividends and capital gains increase the share of the pie that
goes to high-income savers. But the low tax rates increase the absolute size of the workersʼ slice
by making the entire pie bigger. That’s because low tax rates encourage capital accumulation,
productivity and wage growth.
In 2003 Bush allowed a 50 percent write off of capital expenditures One year later, business spending on
equipment had risen 30 percent, to $1.06 trillion compared to the 2002 levels. Employment grew for 46
straight months, creating 8 million new jobs. At the very least this shows that if we permanently rescind
many of our taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations economic growth will follow.

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

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

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

September Research Compendium! 4


College Republican National Committee

Voter Shift Towards Conservatism Has Enormous Electoral


Implications

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

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

This leads to some very interesting electoral consequences. Lydia Saad of Gallup and Anne Kim and
Jon Cowan of Third Way crunched the numbers to see what the electoral consequences of this
ideological shift would be. Washington Post columnist David Broder explained their findings in a recent
article:
Suppose Democratic candidates run as well as Obama did nationally in 2008, taking 20
percent of the conservatives, 60 percent of the moderates and 89 percent of the liberals.
And suppose, too, that turnout rates are the same for all three groups.
With the updated Gallup figures, a 2010 Democratic candidate who matched Obama’s
national percentages would still win Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Oregon and
Washington. But, with more conservatives and fewer liberals in the mix, the Democrat
would come up short in 13 other competitive states and barely break even in California,
Illinois and New Hampshire. Among the big states where the numbers now break
against the Democrats are Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

September Research Compendium! 5


College Republican National Committee

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

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

The President Should Follow His Own Advice and “Wake Up”

HOT OFF THE PRESS!!! Sen. John Kerry is a sore loser. Oh! We already knew this? He said he “couldn’t
believe he [was] losing to this idiot” when he was losing to President Bush? This is alarming news. I
guess it shouldn’t be all that surprising when he recently described American voters as being politically
dumb and blind.
“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people
are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening.”
Hmm. Sounds a lot like how President Obama won. “Yes we can” or “hope and change” anyone? Or how
about a cool Shepard Fairey painting and an Oprah endorsement? Ya know, rather than facts or truth.
The fact is, President Obama wasn’t just a candidate; he was an omnipresent pop culture icon. Everyone
knew he was all about change, but not very many voters knew what exactly this meant.

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

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

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

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

President Obama had similar feelings of his own. In a recent Rolling Stone interview President Obama
responded to a comment about the growing frustration among his supporters by saying, “I’ll tell them,
‘Guys, wake up here. We have accomplished an incredible amount in the most adverse circumstances
imaginable.”
To which, I would say. YOU buck up. YOU wake up. We were promised fundamental change, not half
measures. We understand that you were able to pass two historic pieces of legislation – the stimulus and
healthcare reform – but neither of those is proving effective. The economy, for which he is mainly being
judged, continues to trend the wrong way. The unemployment rate is forecasted to rise above 10
percent, consumer confidence is down, and the economy is growing at a measly 1.6 percent. This
despite a $787 billion stimulus package that must inevitably be paid for by job killing tax increases. If
this is the change that you were promising, you can have it back.

September Research Compendium! 6


College Republican National Committee

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

• “Getting something passed through Congress with 535 members is hard”


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

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

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

GOP’s Young Guns: Not Your Father’s Republican Party

This isn’t your father’s Republican party.” So said Joe Biden at a rally in State College, Pennsylvania this
past week. He’s exactly right. A party often lambasted for being a bunch of old dudes has gotten a face-
lift. The GOP’s Young Guns (and no we’re not talking about the Emilio Estevez movie) are a group of
Republicans set on breaking with the past and ushering in a new, rejuvenated era of conservatism.
The Young Guns, led by Representatives Eric Cantor of Virginia, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Kevin
McCarthy of California, are the new face of the GOP. And it’s giving Democrats fits. Rather than account
for their own shortcomings, Democrats have taken to blaming President Bush for many of the nation’s
ills. Looking to the past has also become their go-to campaign narrative, warning Americans that they
may not like where things are, but think how much worse it would be if we go back to the Republican
policies of the past.

September Research Compendium! 7


College Republican National Committee

In a surprising, and quite frankly, refreshing, move the Young Guns are happy to concede the point.
Rather than argue the merits of past actions, they fully agree that we can’t go back. As Cantor, Ryan,
and McCarthy wrote in a recent USA Today article,
“By the fall of 2006, it had become abundantly clear that Republicans had severely lost
our way. Members who had previously won election promising to safeguard the best
interest of the taxpayers grew consumed with self-preservation. A party that fancied
itself as ethical champions of limited government became overwhelmed by corruption
charges and the reality that we had significantly increased federal spending. We
atrophied, lost our moorings, and lost our way. In hindsight, you can’t blame the voters
for firing us.”
Say what? The public isn’t used to hearing honesty from their Representatives, especially when that
honesty involves lamenting the direction of your own party. A new strategy for new leaders. They
recognize the party’s mistakes, fully own up to and admit them, and are now ready to promise a better
future.

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

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

The personal commitment to fiscal responsibility and true change is embodied in the face of the
movement – the Young Guns. As they wrote for the USA Today,
What unites the Young Guns movement is a conviction that the answer to our daunting
economic problems does not lie in more government. The answer lies in innovation,
economic growth, entrepreneurship, and individual opportunity and freedom. . .
America is a nation at a crossroads, and the choices that we make today will determine
the quality of the country we leave our children tomorrow. We believe that it’s time for
government to again start working for the people who pay for it. We believe that we must
not leave our children a country more in debt and worse off than we found it. And we
believe that elected officials need to start living up to the promises that they have made.
Young adults in particular should feel heartened by the emergence of this new Republican brand. Over
the past several election cycles young adults have been consistently left out in the cold. We great weary
of the Bush years which seemed closed off, insular, and stale. In 2008 we thought we would finally get
the change we were looking for. Barack Obama was well spoken, energetic, and relatively young. He
came promising to shake up Washington and bring real change to a nation in dire need of it. That too
proved to be nothing more than a mirage. The Obama administration has only added to, not changed,
Washington, frittering away our future with historic levels of spending.

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

Their commitment to change is not evidenced by mere words, they have the records to back it up. Paul
Ryan’s Roadmap for America’s Future is an honest and ambitious plan to reform government and get this

September Research Compendium! 8


College Republican National Committee

nation’s finances back on track. Eric Cantor’s YouCut initiative is an innovative program that seeks to
change the spending culture of Washington by allowing citizens input on ways to eliminate wasteful
government spending. Finally, Kevin McCarthy took the lead on the America Speaking Out, an
interactive tool that allows concerned voters input on how Washington should be run.

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

CEOs: Obama’s Anti-Business Rhetoric Dampening Job Growth

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

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

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

Americans must dispel these myths. Private enterprise is not evil, but is the realization of the American
Dream. The private sector is what drives the American economy, it is what fuels innovation, and it is what
creates sustainable employment. Higher taxes against big businesses and increased rules and
regulations of these businesses stifle economic growth and ultimately lead to higher unemployment.
Under the tyranny of excess rules, regulations and taxes, IPOs, capital investments, and stock values
plummet. The competitiveness of companies is severely limited. Despite that, the Obama administration
has recently expanded their attacks on big businesses to now include foreign businesses. The Obama
administration believes that government intervention is what will save America.
To be blunt, America is desperate for jobs. The government plan to rescue employment has failed.
Democrats predicted by the end of this summer, the same summer they touted as the “Summer of
Recovery,” unemployment would drop to around 7%. It is currently at 9.6%, or 11% if you count all the
people who were searching for jobs but have given up, and is expected to remain at that way until 2012.

Instead of creating 3.7 million jobs by summer’s end 2.5 million jobs have been lost with the private
sector losing 2.4 million of those jobs. Almost as a testament to the futility of government interventionist

September Research Compendium! 9


College Republican National Committee

policies, two Los Angeles departments that received $111 million to in stimulus money created/saved a
whopping 55 jobs with the money.

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

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

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

The results could be terrible for a limping economy. A survey of these multinational firms found that 49
percent plan to increase employment in the next 18 months. Such exciting news is tempered by the fact
that 72 percent of the firms said that the environment for their companies is worsening because of
“proposed tax and trade policies.”
Americans must realize that anti-business rhetoric and regulation are crushing the American Dream, not
protecting the average American. We must look past the rhetoric against big business and realize the
Obama administration is asking us to essentially put limitations on how much we as creators, innovators,
and entrepreneurs can achieve. Not only does it impede the growth of our economy, but it judges
personal achievement as morally wrong. This is not the path to recovery. America needs all the business
it can get. Whether businesses are foreign or domestic, they all lead to the same thing: jobs.

Down Big Before Election Day – Democrats Tossing Up Hail Mary’s

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

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

September Research Compendium! 10


College Republican National Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s address them one by one.

Social Security
Reich’s Claim: “Republicans have wanted to destroy Social Security since it was invented in 1935.”
The Truth: This one is easy. As nonpartisan Factcheck.org recently wrote:
“Few if any Republicans now in Congress have ever pushed for total “privatization” of
Social Security. What President Bush proposed in 2005 was to allow workers under the
age of 55 to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. Most of
their taxes would have continued to go into traditional Social Security. . . There was so
little support for Bush’s plan, even among members of his own party, that it died without
ever being introduced as a formal piece of legislation. Furthermore, we’ve seen no
evidence that Republicans are any more enthusiastic about the idea now than they were
the last time they had control of Congress.”
Then again, Republicans, unlike Democrats, are at least willing to admit that there is a problem with the
program. The program ran a deficit for the first time in its history this year. Moreover, the Social Security
Trustees’ Report found that the program’s Trust Fund will begin to run a deficit by 2016.

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

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

September Research Compendium! 11


College Republican National Committee

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

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

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

The Truth: This should really get your blood boiling because it is not simply a case of misinformation, it is
a boldfaced lie. Republicans never vote against an extension because it “coddled” the unemployed.
Rather, Republicans (and some Democrats for that matter) voted against the extension because
Democratic leadership refused to pay for the bill. Don’t take my word for it. Take Ben Nelson (D-NE) who
explained why he voted no by saying,
“So, Congress should provide additional unemployment benefits but not as a bailout to
the states that worsens the deficit and passes the bills onto our children.”
Or Democrat Betsy Markey (D-CO) who said that, “the [unemployment insurance] extension wasn’t paid
for. The bill spent money without cutting somewhere else.” She was of course referring to the previously
passed “pay as you go” legislation that requires spending bills be met with equal spending cuts
elsewhere.
Quite the contrary to Reich’s “hate” narrative, Republicans were eager to pass unemployment extensions
at the time. In fact Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “We’ve offered ways of paying for these
programs, and we’ve been eager to approve them.”
History also doesn’t support Reich’s claim that Republicans hate unemployment insurance. As
Politifact.com recently found,
Bush signed two general extensions in 2003 for 13 weeks each, with significant
Republican support. He also signed extensions in 2008 with Republican support.
We were unable to find any instances when Bush asked for an extension of
unemployment benefits and Congress refused him.

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

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

This of course is one of the fundamental fallacies of Keynesian philosophy. As Nobel Prize winner wrote
in “Economics in One Lesson,”
“There is no more persistent and influential faith in the world today than the faith in
government spending. Everywhere government spending is presented as a panacea for
all our economic ills. Is private industry partially stagnant? We can fix it all by
government spending. Is there unemployment? That is obviously due to “insufficient

September Research Compendium! 12


College Republican National Committee

private spending power.” The remedy is just as obvious. All that is necessary is for the
government to spend enough to make up the ‘deficiency.’”
Of course, what stimulus peddlers fail to remember is that everything must eventually be paid for
through taxes. To be sure, spending will create some jobs. However, to understand the devastating
impact of spending you must look beyond immediate consequences and beyond those who are directly
benefited. For instance, if $1 billion is spent on a green energy windmill today, taxpayers must eventually
pay an additional $1 billion in taxes. That $1 billion taken away can no longer be spent on the things they
wanted or needed most. Moreover, the jobs that would be devoted to building those things we wanted
would be lost. As Hazlitt wrote,
“All that has happened, at best, is that there has been a diversion of jobs because of the
project.”
Running enormous deficits doesn’t actually benefit society in the long term. It only allows the
government to choose who wins while hiding away the losers. But the losers are clear – it is the young
adults, the next generations, who will be responsible for paying for today’s irresponsibility. It will be they
who Reich suggests will suffer “unnecessary hardship” and “poverty.”

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

Republicans’ Pledge Shows Return to Common Sense May be the


Greatest Reform of All

This is the third part in a series analyzing the Republicans’ “Pledge to America”.

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

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

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

September Research Compendium! 13


College Republican National Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September Research Compendium! 14


College Republican National Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama’s Campus Tour Finding College Conservatism on the Rise

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

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

September Research Compendium! 15


College Republican National Committee

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

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

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

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

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

Substitute “middle class” for “young adults” and you’ll understand the frustration that is being seen on
many college campuses. We wanted something different. We were promised something different. We got
more of the same.
More politics. More backdoor dealings. More big government. More spending. More wars. For young
adults there really wasn’t much difference between the Obama administration and the Bush
administration from which they were so disenchanted.

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

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

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

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

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

September Research Compendium! 16


College Republican National Committee

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

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

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

In Tax Cut Debate Democrats Put Self-Preservation Over Public Good

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

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

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

If Pelosi offered one bill to only extend the middle class cuts, Republicans could use
procedural maneuvers to force a separate vote on extending tax cuts for the rich — a
vote Pelosi might well lose.
Likewise, if she brought two bills to the floor — one to extend the middle-income cuts
and, one to extend the cuts for the wealthy — both might pass. That’s an outcome she
wants to avoid.
Fortunately for her, there’s a way out. The House rules allow the Speaker to offer
legislation under what’s known as suspension of the rules. Under suspension, time for
debate is limited and no procedural hijinks are allowed — but a two-thirds majority of
members on hand is required for passage.

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

September Research Compendium! 17


College Republican National Committee

much money as we can in the pockets of citizens. It is the government who must make the move to
tighten their belt in response to declining revenues.

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

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

Once again, such a strategy could be disastrous for average Americans. First, citizens and investors
need to know what the tax rates will be before making certain economic decisions. Economists and most
notably CEO’s have been urging the Obama administration to provide some economic certainty. Sadly,
Democrats agenda has done anything but. Between our growing budget deficit, enormous increases in
regulations and red tape, and looming tax cuts, the amount of variables that an investor has to consider
is dramatically impeding economic activity. Extending the tax cuts could provide at least some small
measure of assurance to investors that they can begin to reenter the market.
Second, delaying the tax cut vote could lead to higher taxes for all Americans, not just the upper
classes. As The Hill reported today, “If Democratic leaders fail to determine the tax rates by Dec. 10, it
could be too late for payroll administrators to withhold the right amount of tax from workers’ paychecks,
according to industry officials.” This only leaves about a two-week working window during which
Washington can vote on the cuts before the IRS deadline for releasing withholding tax tables. In other
words, unless Democrats set aside their egos and allow a bipartisan extension to pass soon, workers
could be paying much more in taxes this April.

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

Republicans’ Healthcare “Pledge” Shows Understanding of


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

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

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

September Research Compendium! 18


College Republican National Committee

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

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

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

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

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

• Enact medical liability reform


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

To be fair, Democrats and Republicans agree on quite a bit. They both focus on creating insurance
exchanges that make it easy to comparison shop. They also focus on prevention rather than treatment,
understand the importance of access for preexisting conditions, and have a goal of lowering costs. The
true difference lies in what Republicans want to leave out. They want to reduce the government’s
presence in the healthcare law by simplifying the law and eliminating the need for the 3,833 pages of
federal regulations that have already been written and the hundreds of new departments and agencies
tasked with carrying out the law.

Rather than focus on what the government can do, Republicans rely on the power of free markets and
individuals to get costs under control. The nexus of their plan is removing the current (but dying) system
of employer and government provided coverage. One of the main problems that insurers have been
able to drive costs skyward is that the consumer has no idea what healthcare actually costs. With no
concept of what they are paying for, consumers’ incentive to shop for lower costs is reduced to near
nothing. By allowing individuals, supplemented by an advanceable tax credit, to purchase their
healthcare they will be forced to spend wisely.

September Research Compendium! 19


College Republican National Committee

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

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

Republican’s Pledge Accomplishes More By Doing Less

This morning at a lumber store in Sterling, VA, John Boehner announced a new document entitled “A
Pledge to America.” It was a fitting place to unveil a plan to restore America. But does the document
contain the tools to get America back on track?

The document, intended to be a blueprint for Republicans governing philosophy, if and when, they
regain control of Congress this November. It is mirrored off of the 1994 Contract with America, which
provided voters a picture of exactly what they were voting for. The Pledge does the same. But it also
goes beyond pure policy, laying out a governing philosophy that is sorely needed in today’s Washington.
It is a promise to restore America back to its ideals where free people govern themselves and the
government stops overstepping its bounds.

Americans don’t need reminded about what our nation stands for; they need directions as to how we are
going to get back there. Fortunately that’s exactly what the Pledge does. So let’s dig in to the first section
of the plan – creating jobs.

With unemployment rates continuing to linger around 10 percent, it is clear that the only thing the
stimulus did was dig our nation deeper into debt. America knows that the federal government’s effort to
jumpstart the economy has been a complete failure. What they don’t know is the extreme negative
pressure that government debt has on the nation’s ability to create jobs.

Large government debt loads does two particularly pernicious things – takes money away from the
private sector and threatens to drive up the cost of borrowing. Neither of these is exactly the road to
recovery. What the Pledge promises to do is, in short, end the failed Keynesian experiment. The hope is
that by eliminating the federal government’s wasteful policies, capital will more freely flow to the portions
of the economy that need it. By getting spending under control we can promise to keep tax rates low,
removing job-killing uncertainty from the economy. As President John F. Kennedy said, “an economy
constrained by high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget, just as it will
never create enough jobs.”
To create incentives for job growth Republicans are pledging to:

• Make the Bush tax cuts permanent to give businesses a sense of certainty
• Provide small businesses with a tax deduction to provide an infusion of business capital
• Rein in red tape by requiring approval of any regulation that costs $100 million or more
• Repeal mandates that our costing small businesses millions in reporting costs

These policies are in direct response to businesses demanding a sense of certainty from a volatile
administration. For instance Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers told MSN Money, “we don’t know
what the greatest great idea from Obama will be. Therefore we are hunkering down.” Intel’s Paul Otellini
has said that “I think this group doesn’t understand what it takes to create jobs.” And Verizon’s Ivan

September Research Compendium! 20


College Republican National Committee

Seidenberg told the Economic Club of Washington that Obama is creating “increasingly hostile
environment for investment and job creation.”

Solving these problems is not all about policy. It is about a shift in ideology from demonizing business to
nurturing business. We must do everything we can to reassure business leaders that they can feel safe
spending some of their saved up cash reserves on capital investments and new employees. A large part
of that is to simply stop the top-down tinkering that is driving much of the angst in the business
community. To that end, the plan, which does not scrounge for more economic levers to pull, but instead
appears content with a hands off approach, could work.
If nothing else, it represents a wholesale change from the interventionist Keynes policies which has so
dominated (and disrupted) the past year. This Pledge is by no means a comprehensive solution to job
creation. Nevertheless, it represents a solid start, and more importantly, it represents a promise to
business leaders that they, not the government, can begin to get the economy moving again.
Empowerment has long been a hallmark of America. It will be good to see its return if Republicans get
their chance in November.

Poll Finds Republicans Better Represent Voter’s Values


Democrats no longer reflect the majority of Americans. For almost all of the past 14
years voters’ have said that the Democratic Party better reflects their attitudes about
government and better represents their values as people. That is all changing.

Democrats were granted an almost unprecedented mandate in the 2008 elections. Already having
control of both Houses of Congress, American voters signaled that they were ready to hand the keys to
the car completely to Democrats. We as a nation were tired of Bush’s detached leadership style. We
were ready for change. We voted for change. We got change.

But Democrats have taken it too far in the other direction. Rather than represent our views of what
government should be and attempt to reflect what we as citizens’ value, they attempted to implement
their own vision for America. They instituted a broader social safety net akin to Western European welfare
states. Democrats increased the role of government while downplaying, and sometimes vilifying, the
private sector. They used the federal government as a tool for intervention in things they thought could
be improved.
The problem is that this new vision for America is not one that is shared by the majority of the United
States. We have a rich tradition built on individual achievement in spite of, not because of, the state. The
government is viewed as a means to pave the road for individuals to achieve their dreams, not as a
means to drive the car for them. The government should be small and effective, taxes should be low and
fair.

To the extent that Democrats vision differs from these traditional American values, they have squandered
the goodwill they have developed over the last decade. As a recent Gallup poll finds, today “fewer than
half of Americans, 44%, now say that the Democratic Party represents their views on the role of
government.” This represents an 18 percent drop since 1999.

September Research Compendium! 21


College Republican National Committee

Even more telling, by a 56 percent to 49 percent margin, voters now say that Republicans are the party
better aligned with their overall values. Since 1999 Democrats image among voters has been in a steady
decline, hastened dramatically following Democrats taking control of Congress in 2006.

Is it that American values have changed? No, the more likely answer is that the Democrats changed.
America still believes in hard work, individual freedom, and personal responsibility. But now that
Democrats are fully in the spotlight America is left wondering if they uphold the same principles.

America is ready for a REPRESENTATIVE government. A party that really understands and represents
the voice of the people. We don’t want the government watching over us every step of the way from the
cradle to the grave. We want them there to pick us up when we fall, not carry us when we want to walk.

September Research Compendium! 22


College Republican National Committee

America is not going to change. Our values are deeply engrained by our hard fought independence.
Whichever party wants to win had better awaken to this fact. But I can’t help but notice in these graphs
that it is looking an awful like 1994.

Obamacare’s Six Month Anniversary Passes With Little Fanfare


Yesterday marked the six-month anniversary for the Obamacare bill. Did you remember to get it a
present? What do you get a bill that already has everything? It already has all our money. I guess the
only thing it could have that it doesn’t already – our support.

In a recent poll done by the AP, only 30 percent said that they favor the new bill while 40 percent remain
opposed. The 10 percent approval ratings gap generally reflect the average of recent polls. According
to Pollster.com, a site that aggregates and averages poll results, 49 percent of the public disapprove of
the law while 41 percent favor it.
Perhaps more interesting is the 30 percent who remained neutral in the AP poll. In this debate, which has
largely defined the last 18 month, how could anyone have possibly remained neutral? The results of the
poll seem to indicate that it isn’t because they don’t care, it is because they do not understand.

It seems Nancy Pelosi’s now infamous prediction, that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out
what is in it,” hasn’t come true. Quite the contrary, millions of Americans are still left wondering what the
heck is in this behemoth piece of legislation. As Diann Kelley told the Associated Press, “I’m insecure
about a document that was as big as the health care bill and wonder if anybody understand exactly
what’s in it.”

The public are not the only ones left confused about the new law. Federal regulators, insurance
companies, and doctors are just as clueless. And how could they not be? Through July 31st, 3,833
pages of federal regulations have been issued regarding the new law. Moreover, the new law provides
for the creation of more than 160 boards, bureaus, and commissions that must be navigated to
understand the full impact of the legislation.

I don’t understand everything that is in the bill. I don’t trust the man who says he does. But I know that
healthcare has not been what the Democrats promised it would. For instance, since the bill was passed
we’ve found out that a number of the benefits we were promised aren’t going to come into fruition.

The chief actuary for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services released a report showing that
national healthcare spending will increase under the new law relative to baseline levels. So much for
bending the cost-curve down. The CMS report found that spending will grow an average of 6.3 percent
each year, compared to pre-reform projections showing growth around 6.0 percent. The law also is the
direct result of a number premium increases. Many national carriers have said that premium increases
ranging from 1 percent to 9 percent will be put into effect to be able to pay for extra benefits required
under the law. Finally, it appears that the famous “if you like your plan, you can keep it” was nothing but
a myth. According to Investor’s Business Daily, “Internal administration documents reveal that up to 51
percent of employers may have to relinquish their current healthcare coverage because of Obamacare.”

The path to the six-month anniversary has been littered with broken promise. Is it any surprise then that
Democratic candidates are running as far away? As the Los Angeles Times reported,
“Democrats aren’t seeing the political benefit Obama promised them when he told them
they’d be proud to campaign on the measure. In the House, 219 Democrats voted for
the health bill, but the party’s only House members highlighting their votes in ad
campaigns are a few of the 34 who opposed the measure and can now boast of their
independence.”

September Research Compendium! 23


College Republican National Committee

The low approval ratings of the bill fly in the face of Bill Clinton’s prediction that “I don’t care how low they
drive support for this with misinformation. The minute the president signs the healthcare reform bill,
approval will go up, because Americans are inherently optimistic.” We’re optimists, but only when there
is something to be optimistic about. And it’s tough to feel hopeful when we have no clue what is in the bill
and the few bits that have come out are less than wonderful. Higher costs? Higher premiums? Less
choice? What exactly is there to like about that?
Sorry that after six months we continue to remain unimpressed by Obamacare. Oh, and I wouldn’t
expect the numbers to change, not unless the bill begins to live up to the promises made before its
passage. Happy-freakin’-anniversary! And good riddance.

Special message to the College Republican from Congressman Jeff


Miller

Since becoming a U.S. Congressman Jeff Miller (R-FL) has established himself as one of the staunchest
conservatives. In addition to being a Republican leader on the House Armed Services Committee he is a
tireless advocate for less government, less taxes and more personal freedoms.

Having taken the oath of office in 2001, he has witnessed the harmful impact that Democratic control of
Washington has had on future generations. Unless something is done this November to help our nation
change course, the burden of their reckless spending will soon be felt by young Americans.

That is why he has taken the time to explain the importance of College Republicans’ Operation Red
November. As Miller explains, “things that are going on in Washington and around this country are
unsustainable. Those costs are being put on the back of young Americans just like each of you. . . So
you as College Republicans need to do your part as part of Operation Red November.” Check out more
of what Congressman Miller had to say below:

!"#$#%&'(')*+%,-.).$/-%0'-.1*%#2%3.4)%5#66

Well Obama is at it again. Relying on fancy words, soaring rhetoric, and an emotional tone rather than
actual substance to win the approval of the public. His latest attempt to sell the Democratic brand prior
to the crucial 2010 midterm elections came at an CNBC town-hall forum.

Once again Obama proved to be poised and eloquent as he addressed the state of the economy. But if
you have learned anything in the past two years it is that you must be careful to remember what Obama
is doing while you are listening to what he is saying. For instance, President Obama said during the
town-hall,

“We had to make sure that we didn’t slip into a Great Depression. Now, we’ve done that.
Those programs that we put in place worked. . . And so the question then becomes
what can we now put in place to make sure that the trend lines continue in a positive
direction.”

I think the better question would be whether we are headed in a positive direction at all. The New York
Times reported yesterday that the United States economy has lost more jobs than it has added since the
recovery began. Read that carefully. Not since the recession began. We’ve lost more jobs since the so-
called recovery began!

September Research Compendium! 24


College Republican National Committee

It shouldn’t be surprising then that a new report by the Labor Department found that 27 states reported
higher unemployment rates in August. That is up from the 14 who saw an increase in July. What was that
about maintaining the trend lines? Thirteen states continue to have jobless rates above 10 percent.
Worse, many economists are predicting that the national unemployment rate will once again creep
above 10 percent this year.
Then came a time for Q-and-A. Unsurprisingly most of the questions given by everyone from average
Joes to Wall Street insiders, focused on an overall disappointment in how the economy was being
managed. But one question especially struck a chord.

It was from an African-American woman who was a chief financial officer and a middle class American.
She said,

“I’m exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of
change that I voted for. I’ve been told that I voted for a man who was going to change
things in a meaningful way for the middle class, and I’m waiting sir, I’m waiting. I still
don’t feel it yet. And I thought that – while it wouldn’t be in great measure – I would feel it
in some small measure.”

How many others feel exhausted? Exhausted from searching for a non-existent job all day while we have
the Vice President parading around declaring it the “Recovery Summer?” Exhausted from trying to find
ways to feel hopeful about the direction of our economy while President Obama presents no clear vision
on how we are going to improve it.

John Harwood, host of the forum, made the comment that a good leader makes changes if necessary.
He directed the comment to the President and asked if he, Obama, was willing to make changes. In this
opportunity to either stand strong in his policies or to openly share his willingness to try a new angle,
Obama responded by saying his economic team has been doing an “outstanding job”. Outstanding job?
With a nation that is still floating around a 9% unemployment rate, I would say he is using the word
“outstanding” very loosely.

Others in the audience also seemed tired. Among the questions were, “[H]onestly, is this my new
reality?” and “Is the American dream dead for me?” What a tragic fall from the utter euphoria from 2008
when millions joined in a chant of “yes we can.”

So what is President Obama prepared to do to reverse course and get this economy back on its feet?
Better yet, what is he prepared to do to restore faith among Americans?

One of the direct questions pertaining to change was whether the President would be willing to make
changes among his economic advisers – namely Tim Geithner and Larry Summers. Surprisingly
President Obama subtly suggested they may be on their way out.
“But the bottom line is, is that we’re constantly thinking, is what we’re doing working as
well as it could? Do we have other options and other alternatives that we can explore?”

If he answered those questions truthfully then the clear response should be no. Things are not working
as well as they could. The stimulus was a colossal flop that has done little but dug future generations into
a debt hole they will spend their lives trying to escape from. Their policy agenda, especially a massive
new healthcare bill, has so unsettled the hiring market that employers are unwilling to commit to new
employees. And looming uncertainty in the form of tax hikes and burdensome regulations is stifling
business growth. These are not the ingredients of a successful economic policy capable of leading us
out of the recession.

September Research Compendium! 25


College Republican National Committee

But if Obama is hinting at some departures amongst his economic team one has to wonder whether or
not he truly believes in the success of his policies. If he truly believed what he said, that the “programs
that we put in place worked” then why do you suggest that a staff shakeup may be necessary.

Perhaps he’s coming around to the idea that maybe the economy continues to lag for a reason, namely,
intrusion by an activist government. Maybe he’s figuring out that the economy won’t respond to his
sophisticated diction or inflection. Then again, so long as the public remains enrapt, I wouldn’t hold my
breath.

The Recession is Over – But Under Obama’s Policies High


Unemployment is Not
Ladies and Gentleman of the United States: WE HAVE DONE IT! We have officially made it through the
Great Recession. Cue the confetti drop. Hip Hip Hooray! Hip Hip Hooray! Hip…wait why am I the only
one cheering? Didn’t everyone see the National Bureau of Economic Research report that showed that
the recession officially ended in the summer of 2009? That’s something to cheer about right? Oh…so you
still don’t have a job huh? Your company still isn’t making any money? Your home price continues to fall
through the floor? Seems to me that a country that has been out of a recession for over a year now
should be doing a little better than this.

Sure, the NBER declared the recession over, but that likely won’t make much difference to the 14.9
million without jobs. But now that the recession has been given a starting and an end point it does allow
us to do one thing – judge the recovery. As John Merline of AOL News writes,

The bigger problem for Obama, though, is that now that we have an official end date for the recession,
we can compare the current recovery to previous economic recoveries. And that picture is not
particularly flattering at all.
Looking at the history of past recessions, the deeper the fall in GDP, the larger the post recession
rebound. Take this chart put together by TD Financial Group:

September Research Compendium! 26


College Republican National Committee

As you can see, in general, past recession follow the general trend. The deeper the fall the faster the job
growth on our march back to full employment. But notice where the 2008-2009 recession lies on along
the trend line. That’s right, we’re an outlier. A lonely little dot that shows the deepest drop in peak-to-
trough decline in GDP and yet comparatively weak growth in the four quarters after the recession was
over.

The failure of our recovery is seen in other ways. Typically, around the 15th month of a recession, we
begin to see an uptick in nonfarm employment numbers. We are currently into the 30th month following
the beginning of the recession and the economy continues to shed jobs. The following chart allows us to
compare the overall employment trends from this recession as compared to others dating back to World
War II.

Not exactly promising. While other recessions began to see job growth, our nation continues to suffer
from high unemployment. Far from getting better, many economists are now predicting that the
unemployment percentage will once again reach 10 percent by the end of this year.

We’ve examined history in the aggregate, so now let’s compare the recovery following this recession with
its closest kin – the 1980s recession. During that time our nation was facing similar problems.
Unemployment reached 10.8 percent, which is actually about .7 percent higher than the worst of our
current downturn. Given past history, that should indicate a steeper recovery. Unfortunately, we’re seeing
just the opposite. In the first four quarters following the worst of the recession, the recovery is growing
more than twice as slow under Obama than it did under Reagan. Even if we look at the declared end of
the recessions, rather than the bottoming out, the picture does not improve. Fourteen months after the
end of the 1980s recession the unemployment rate had dropped 8 percent and the economy was
growing at a 7.7 percent rate. In today’s recovery the unemployment rate continues an upward creep
while economic growth has averaged less than 3 percent.

September Research Compendium! 27


College Republican National Committee

As Merline’s chart shows:

That this recovery has been drastically slower than Reagan’s is clear, but why? Reagan chose to
drastically cut individual and corporate tax rates while slowing the growth in government spending.
Barack Obama has done the exact opposite. Our corporate tax rate remains the second highest in the
world, capital gains taxes are scheduled to increase, and government spending has risen to historic
levels.

The cumulative result has been mass uncertainty in the very job creators we need to pull us out of the
recession. Government intervention has only managed to prolong the recession, not stimulate our way
out of it. Until the government gets out of the way, by showing a commitment to addressing its deficits,
eliminating the regulatory uncertainty of massive legislation, and providing a certain direction on tax
policy, then our recovery will continue to suffer.

Time and time again we hear that we must learn from our past mistakes so that we are not doomed to
repeat them. President Obama would have been wise to study the history of recessions in the United
States. He would have found that the path toward a quick recovery lies in smart, targeted, supply side
strategies, not desperate stabs at Keynesian stimulation. How sad that we’ve learned from neither our
mistakes nor our successes. Until we do, I’ll hold off on celebrating the end of the recession.

100 Recovery Act Projects That Are Changing America (For the
Worse)

Taxpayers of America rejoice! Tired of the nearly endless stream of reports showing the mind-numbingly
dumb ways in which their stimulus project was spending taxpayer money, the Obama administration
decided to fight back. Their report, entitled, 100 Recovery Act Projects That Are Changing America, was
intended as a direct response to several reports issues by Sens. John McCain and Tom Coburn
highlighting the 100 Most Wasteful Stimulus Projects.
So does the Obama report allow taxpayers to rest easy knowing that their tax money was spent on
worthwhile projects? No.

September Research Compendium! 28


College Republican National Committee

Just take a look at some of the projects that the report, supposedly the best-of-the best, highlights:
• A $299 million grant to build a battery manufacturing facility in Michigan for a company that was
considering Asian locations. The project created or saved at least 100 jobs.
• $8.3 million in grants to Toledo to allow them to re-hire 31 police officers.
• $114 million for ECOtality, a manufacturer of electric vehicles, to help them produce 8,500
electric drive vehicles. The company reported the stimulus helped support 50 jobs.
• $3 million for the Malden Redevelopment Authority to help remove lead paint and other safety
hazards. They company reports it was able to retain 5 employees that would otherwise be laid
off.
There are two distinct problems with even these cream-of-the-crop proposals. First, none of these
projects deliver a respectable cost-to-jobs ratio. Second, they artificially diverts capital away from other
worthwhile projects.
The government is notoriously inefficient. Or to take Reagan’s preferred metaphor, “Government is like a
baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.” In
this case the taxpayers were forced to feed the giant baby a whopping $862 billion to fund the economic
stimulus plan. Coming out the other end it looks a lot like what you would expect.
Even after having passed the largest stimulus in our nation’s history the unemployment rate continues to
tick upwards. Moreover, things are not on track to improve anytime soon. Recently economists predicted
that over the next year the unemployment rate will rise above 10 percent before finally starting to fall.
Why didn’t the stimulus stimulate? One big reason is that the money was not used efficiently. It went
towards things like seeing how monkeys react under the influence of cocaine, improving the freezing
process of rat sperm, and improving African genital hygiene.
You may argue that these projects are cherry-picked and not indicative of the whole. But even when you
look at the administration picked as its best projects you see a whole lot of money spent and very few
jobs created.! For instance, their #1 project used $100 million stimulus dollars and has created 230 jobs
so far. That’s approximately $430,000 per job. The second and third projects don’t get much better –
$153 million to save 150 research positions and $49 million to create 100 jobs. Each of these projects
arguably does worthwhile things, providing housing for wounded soldiers or cancer research, but we
weren’t sold on the plan because it was worthwhile. We were sold on the plan because it was supposed
to create jobs. And judging by that metric, the only one that matters, the stimulus is a miserable failure.
Second, the stimulus projects are being championed by the administration using a myopic train of
thought. Nobel Prize winning economist Henry Hazlitt wrote in his seminal book, Economics in One
Lesson, that,
The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also look beyond.
The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks
at the longer and indirect consequences. The bad economists sees only what the effect of a given policy
has been or will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of the
policy will be on all groups.
Using this definition we can tell that the White House is chock full of bad economists. The short-term,
long-term dichotomy has become thoroughly engrained in today’s politics. Democrats cried that we
needed an enormous injection of funds to get the economy going, Republicans countered that the
national debt that would be created would be a long term drag on the economy that it would actually
hinder growth.
But the argument, or as Hazlitt would say “fallacy,” that I want to discuss is that Democrat’s are too
focused on the good of one particular group without looking at the broader picture. We know that every
dollar of government spending must eventually be pad for through future taxes. So when a government
creates a stimulus project with the idea of increasing employment it is not a free bridge, future taxpayers
must pay for it. But, you may say, it created jobs. Yes, it created jobs for the construction workers
necessary to build the bridge. But it is also true that the cost of the bridge, say $5,000,000, is directly

September Research Compendium! 29


College Republican National Committee

taken from money that would have been spread around to other jobs. That $5 million would have been
spread around the economy purchasing things like televisions, computers, and cars, each of which take
people to build. So the stimulus project didn’t so much create jobs as it did divert jobs.
The problem is that we can see the construction worker get hired. We can mark him on our tally of “jobs
saved or created.” On the contrary the “other” jobs are spread throughout the economy and thus
imminently less visible, and thus, less politically valuable. And political value is the name of the game in
Washington where creating jobs is only a means to an end, namely, reelection.
President Obama is hyping the success of the stimulus in his new report 100 Stimulus Projects That are
Changing America. But is this clear waste and redistribution really the kind of change they should be
touting?

Krugman’s Baseless Attack On Wealth Highlights Liberals’ Flaw


He is at it again. Paul Krugman took a few moment away from polishing his Nobel medal to write his
column for the New York Times. Unwilling to look into the reasons for the crisis, disinclined from
providing solutions on how to get our way out of it, Krugman instead relies on vitriol for readership.

In an attempt to overshadow his own flaming contempt for all things conservative, he attempts to
channel other people’s anger at some amorphous thing. “Anger is sweeping America,” Krugman writes.
“[T]he angry minority is angry indeed, consisting of people who feel that things to which they are entitled
are being taken away. And they’re out for revenge.”

The “they” Krugman is referring to is the “rich” people in America. He argues (wrongly) that they are
angry that President Obama is considering allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for top earners.

To be fair to Krugman, rich people are very upset with the way President Obama is running this country.
But I have come across no instance in which they have openly complained about the tax cuts. For
instance, Steve Forbes, whom Krugman mentions pointedly in his article, ran a cover story arguing that
“Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in history.” The story goes on to lament many of the
President’s policies, everything from questionable offshore drilling decisions to his foolish reliance on
stimulus, but nowhere does it mention the Bush-era tax cuts.
There are other wealthy individuals, many of them previous Barack Obama donors, who are beginning to
come down hard on the President. Daniel S. Loeb is perhaps chief among them. Loeb, a registered
Democrat, penned a letter to his investors saying that, “So long as our leaders tell us that we must trust
them to regulate and redistribute our way back to prosperity, we will not break out of this economic
quagmire.”

Or Paul Ottelini, CEO of Intel, who has criticized Obama because he “does not understand what it takes
to create jobs. And I think they’re flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working.”

These are the kinds of people Krugman is referring to when he says “craziness has gone mainstream. . .
When it comes to defending the interests of the rich, it seems, the normal rules of civilized (and rational)
discourse no longer apply.” None of the critiques he mentions even so much as skirts the boundary of
“crazy.” These are smart, rational, and yes, wealthy, people who are laying out the economic case
against President Obama’s policies.

They argue many things. They argue that the burdensome regulations found in many bills are
diminishing their profit margins. They argue that having the second highest corporate tax rates in the
world are driving down our ability to compete globally. They argue that enormous policy shifts like
healthcare reform and uncertainty over capital gains taxes are driving up uncertainty while depressing
hiring. But nowhere, nowhere, have I seen any of the rich businessmen complain that Obama is killing
America because he wants to let tax cuts for the upper classes expire.

September Research Compendium! 30


College Republican National Committee

Instead, the people I hear complaining are economists. A new poll from CNN Money found that 60
percent argued that the best thing to do to help the economy would be to extend cut for all taxpayers.
Only 10 percent said that we should extend tax cuts for only the middle class. As one of the surveyed
economists said, “extend tax cuts for all income levels and do nothing else. More of the same
piecemeal, patchwork policies put forth by this administration will undermine confidence and do little to
change the path the economy is on.” The rich people aren’t the ones complaining, if for no other reason
than they don’t have to, economists and politicians (including a good number of Democrats) are making
the case for them – that it simply make no economic sense.

Nevertheless, Krugman sticks to his straw man argument – that rich people are bristling at the notion at
paying higher taxes because of some “belligerent sense of entitlement.” He then goes on to lament the
“spectacle of high-income Americans, the world’s luckiest people, wallowing in self-pity.”

That statement is the encapsulation of everything that is wrong with Krugman’s post. Nevemind that he
wrongly imputes a position onto the rich that they themselves have not taken, the fact that he calls them
“the world’s luckiest people” explains everything. This belies the growing liberal notion that the rich are
the oppressive class. That they were only able to amass such wealth by plundering the poor and ripping
off the rest of society. Moreover, they achieved this, not because of some unique skill or hard work, no,
their only claim to success is luck. And it is because of this luck that America should not feel bad when
we take what they have been given away. They didn’t earn it, they simply lucked into it, so there is no
moral injustice is seizing it.

But in this free market society that we call America successful people make their own luck. Their hard
work and skills put them at the right place at the right time to succeed. That isn’t to say that many people
aren’t suffering, it’s to say that the wealthy are a scapegoat from the larger problems.

Krugman had it right – anger is sweeping America. But if the wealthy are furious, it is because the
economic policies of Barack Obama are killing their businesses’ income, not because they have to pay
more income taxes.

Obama’s Big Spending Agenda Ruined Relationship With Young


Adults
“It’s not me, it’s you.” Those are normally the words that cement the failure of a relationship that has gone
awry. Across the country, Democratic candidates are hearing this sentiment, and they can’t understand
why. They can’t understand why they have fallen out of favor with the population in general, but more
importantly, they haven’t realized that they have lost the allegiance of today’s college students.
The fact is simple, while Democrats have spent at a record rate ($4.71 trillion added to the national debt)
America has seen unemployment increase! No generation is being burdened more by Washington’s
recent spending orgy than mine, and this article will explain why young people don’t like it, and what
College Republicans plan to present as an alternative.
Did you know that nearly 20% of young adults are unemployed? That is twice the national average,
which in itself is unacceptable. A 54.3% increase to the national debt has frightened job creators to the
point where one in five young people can’t find a paying job. This clearly shows that the more
government wastefully spends, the less ability people will have to find work.! Don’t think the stimulus was
loaded with wasteful spending? Take a look at “Stupid Spending” on www.ourtab.org to see where our
hard-earned money went. My personal favorite is the $677,000 that the Georgia State University
received to study “how monkeys respond to inequity and unfairness.” I think it’s unfair that we are
psychoanalyzing monkeys while millions of Americans can’t find work.

September Research Compendium! 31


College Republican National Committee

What terrifies young students the most is the amount of money they will be forced to pay to the debt.
Today, every child’s share of the national debt is $118,000, money that will have to be paid off through
higher taxes or reduced government services. But how can we be expected to pay this off if 20 percent
of our generation doesn’t even have a job? With so much bad policy in such a short amount of time, it’s
worth asking: has the statist agenda won out?
The answer is no. There is a reason why Obama has seen an 18% drop in his approval rating amongst
18-29 year old voters according to a February Pew Poll.! His plans are detrimental to young people. He
said he had our best interests in mind, but he lied! He cheated on our generation, but we’ve caught him
in the act. Let’s just say that come November, young adults will say to Democrats, “It’s not me, it’s your
policies that have ruined our relationship.”

Economists Agree – Extend the Tax Cuts. So Why Aren’t Dems


Listening?
We agree. Those two words are about as rare in Washington as a dodo bird. That is to say, they are
extinct.

In fact, disagreement is the name of the game. The stimulus worked! The stimulus was an utter failure!
Healthcare reform is necessary to bend the cost curve! Yea, upwards. We need to spend our way out of
this! No, all this debt is keeping businesses out of the game!

Previously it seems that the two sides could only agree about one thing – the need to yell to get their
point across. But now we’ve got something else! A new CNNMoney poll of leaning economists found
that tax cuts are the way to go if we want to get the economy back on track. When asked what Congress
should do to help the economy 60 percent said we should extend tax cuts for all taxpayers. The next
closest answer was “other” at 16 percent.

As CNN wrote of the results, “[E]conomists surveyed were in broad agreement that the recovery is still
too fragile to allow taxes to go up for the 97 percent of taxpayers not in the top brackets.”

As we’ve chronicled before many House Democrats are also lining up in favor of extending the tax cuts
for all Americans. The reason, as many of them explained in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, is that, “in times of economic recovery it makes good sense to maintain

September Research Compendium! 32


College Republican National Committee

things as they are in the short term, to provide families and businesses the certainty required to plan and
make sound budget decisions.”

Economists from across the spectrum are on board, many House Democrats are on board, and
Republicans have been the one steering the ship from Jump Street. Now, for the first time in this
Administration, a majority of us agree on something. Surely this is progress. So let’s get this party started
and extend some tax cuts!

Wrong. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi have turned the debate into politics,
saying that the Republicans are holding the middle class “hostage” by demanding that they all be
passed.

Why they can’t understand that this logic works equally well the other way is beyond me. Democrats
could be said to have taken the middle class “hostage” by refusing to agree to pass them for everyone.

It’s the exact same situation, except for the fact that Republicans seem to have the majority on their side.
Economists agree it would be beneficial to extend them for everyone, Democrats agree that raising
taxes on a recession seems like a bad idea, and Republicans think it is the best way to spur the
economy. So with everyone on the side of extending them, isn’t it Democrats who are the hostage
takers? The tax-terrorists, if you will (and if you can take a joke).

For once, a majority of us agree on something. What a shame it would be if we let this historic
opportunity go to waste.

All Politics is Local, But for Democrats Debt Problems Exist


Nationwide
All politics is local. That is the phrase Democrats have been bandying about as their savior for the
midterm elections. They know most of the country doesn’t like Nancy Pelosi, Congressional Democrats,
or even Barack Obama, but if you can just keep the issues local then they have a chance to win some
seats and retain the majority. The problem with this theory is that the crushing burden of debt extends
well beyond the federal government; it reaches deep into the wallets of our cities and municipalities.
Though we’ve made a point to talk about Greece and the Spain, about California and Illinois, and about
all things Washington, but left out of the discussion so far have been places like Harrisburg, Virginia or
Los Angeles. But these places, though certainly less flashy to talk are also on the verge of bankruptcy.

The problem stems from the same spending addiction that plagues Washington. Cities and states are
facing an enormous money crunch. With so many people out of a job, tax revenues have fallen through
the floor. Adding insult to injury, cash-strapped people have been unable to afford their homes, forcing
property values, along with property taxes to drop. Unfortunately, you would never be able to tell that
municipalities faced a revenue problem if all you saw was the amount of money they have been
spending. An report by the Bureau of Economic Analysis found that despite some deep program cuts,
total spending by state and local governments actually increased by .1 percent in 2009.

It should come as no surprise then that as of the first quarter of 2010, state and local governments had
$2.8 trillion in outstanding debt. Even worse, this astounding figure doesn’t include the number one
problem facing states – their unfunded pension liabilities that may be as much as $2 trillion in and of
itself.

A significant amount of the debt comes from long-term municipal bonds. These bonds are popular
because of their perceived low risk, short-term yields, and tax-free returns. Unfortunately, the idea of a
low risk investment is flying out the window.

September Research Compendium! 33


College Republican National Committee

Although only eight municipalities have declared bankruptcy in the last five years, the writing on the wall
appears to signal a looming problem. Take the 1930s as an example. In those days total municipal debt
was around $250 billion in today’s dollars, less than 10 percent of the debt currently held by our state
and local governments. Then the Great Depression hit, drying up tax revenues and highlighting the
reckless spending of previous generations. By the time the dust had settled, 4,500 municipalities had
defaulted.

We now face a similar problem. Cities and states, like the federal government, haven’t been great
stewards of our money. Many have used the funds to finance everything from low cost housing to
stadium projects. They then borrowed even more money in an attempt to cover up the huge deficits such
spending caused.

Harrisburg, PA is the first domino to fall. The city’s 2010 budget completely omitted debt payments,
signaling that they may intentionally default on the debt obligations. The immediate cause will be a
missed interest payment on an incinerator, but the long-term problem is structural deficits. Beyond the
losses to the Harrisburg citizens who invested in their city, the major weight of the default will lie on third
party investors. To politicians this seems like an almost too good to be true scenario. Few citizens will
lose money, their debts get taken off the books, and they accomplished it all without having to raise
taxes or reduce spending.

Of course, this too, has its problems. Cities rely on outside parties, including large corporations, to
purchase their debt. Strategic defaults such as this one in Harrisburg may send a signal that
municipalities are willing to default rather than do the politically risky thing of raising taxes. As Dave
Anderson wrote,

Default is attractive when the options are firing half the police force, closing all the pools
and not paving any streets for the next three years to pay off a large debt, or keeping
most public services and public employment working while screwing those SOBs on
Wall Street.

But as cities default their credit ratings will face downgrade. This in turn will make capital much more
difficult to come by now, and especially in the future as banks return to being more liquid. Defaulting
now may mean that cities will no longer be able to afford necessary infrastructure projects down the
road.

A possibly larger problem is the worried investors holding billions of dollars in short term municipal debt
who are now scared to death that their investment will be worth nothing. Companies, small businesses,
retirees, and anyone else with an investment portfolio that includes these typically safe bonds may face
enormous losses. Such a loss of wealth will only hinder recovery as job creators attempt to get their
balance sheets back in alignment by cutting costs and consumers buying power is reduced.

All politics may be local, but as our municipalities’ balance sheets show, the spending problem exists far
beyond Washington.

September Research Compendium! 34


College Republican National Committee

A Debt That Threatens Our Future


We’re making history for all the wrong reasons. Under President Obama’s leadership our national debt
has reached it’s highest level in history. Even more worrisome, it is not going away anytime so

According to the budget issued earlier this year by the Obama administration, our national spending will
increase from a 50 year average of 20.5 percent of GDP to 28 percent in 2020, to 42 percent in 2040.
Such an incredible jump in spending will have long lasting negative consequences that threaten the very
economic foundation of our generation.

The enormous spending increases is the primary cause of the debt crisis we face. The debt is
scheduled to explode, jumping from 60 percent of GDP in the year 2000 to 110 percent of GDP by 2020.
For a dose of comparison, the federal debt has only surpassed 100 percent of GDP one other time in our
nations history – in the period just after World War II. As soon as the war was over, our debt fell.
Unfortunately, if current spending trends remain constant, we shouldn’t look towards the same rebound.
Under the Congressional Budget Office’s predictions, by 2035 our national debt could reach 185
percent of GDP and would continue to spiral upwards.

The majority of the spending is the result of an unsustainable entitlement system that produces an
inexorable growth in costs. Programs such as Social Security and Medicare are funded under a pay-as-
you-go approach that promise benefits today that will only be paid for out of taxes tomorrow. Take Social
Security for instance. If you take a look at your paycheck, a substantial portion is being taken out in
payroll taxes to pay for the program. The money being taken out of your salary is not being stashed
away so that it can supplement your retirement; no, it’s being used now to pay for today’s retirees.

The problem with this system is that the federal government can promise a generous benefit without
regard to whether or not it can actually afford it in the future. As Andrew Biggs explained in his article
Why Does Government Grow and Grow and Grow, “Once today’s taxpayers reach retirement they feel
fully entitled to their benefits, even if the taxes they paid were nowhere near enough to fund the benefits
they will receive.” In other words, we’re creating an “entitlement society” who is made to feel they
deserve a certain level of government benefits, regardless of the impact this will have on the deficit.
Sadly, the culture of Washington, which rewards extravagant promises with reelection, has nurtured this
“entitlement society.”

The results are breathtaking. In 1970, 38 percent of total spending was mandatory entitlement programs.
By 2010, that number had jumped to 62 percent of total spending and by 2040 it will by 82 percent. As
the proportion of our spending is increasingly devoted to ensuring stable benefits for our growing
entitlement programs, some things which we currently take for granted will be forced to fall by the
wayside. Education? National defense? Infrastructure? If we continue down the current entitlement path,
there will be nothing left over for these once core government functions.

Yet, if you believed President Obama, we shouldn’t be focusing on our unsustainable spending habits,
instead our eyes should be firmly affixed on finding ways to increase revenue. Enter, the Democrats plan
to appeal to the deficit-hawks – eliminate some of the Bush era tax cuts. Even if we set aside the
conservative principle that the government should, to the extent that they are able, stay out of the
pockets of its citizens, there are economic reasons to support extending the tax cuts. The CBO has said
that extending the tax cuts put in place under President Bush would provide a “considerable” economic
boost where “economic growth would be stronger next year; unemployment would be lower next year.”
Harvard researcher Alberto Alesina agrees. His study of over 200 fiscal policies following recessions
finds that a combination of tax cuts and spending discipline is the best way to spur economic growth –
not government stimulus.

The Obama administration would be wise to change its focus. A review of our nation’s balance sheet
reveals that spending, not revenues, is the major problem we face in returning to a sustainable financial

September Research Compendium! 35


College Republican National Committee

balance. Even as our nation recovers from this deep recession, our national debt will remain a drag on
our economic success. This November we, as a country, must vote for change. We must vote for
candidates who understand that before the government can ask us to reach deeper into our wallets, it
must first make necessary changes to its spending habits.

Lessons from Fidel? Cuba Looks to Private Sector to Escape


Recession

“I find capitalism repugnant. It is filthy, it is gross, it is alienating…because it causes war, hypocrisy, and
competition.” – Fidel Castro

The most recent economic downturn has apparently made Castro think twice about his commitment to
Socialism. The global recession has caused many countries to turn away from big-government policies.
The social welfare states of Western Europe which are now raising retirement ages, slashing the size of
government, and cutting some government provided benefits have been the poster child for the
movement to smaller government. But, Cuba, which is making similar moves, may now take the cake.

Fidel Castro was a revolutionary. After taking control of the government he set about creating a Socialist
oasis. He seized private property with minimal compensation, nationalized the utilities, and all but shut
down the private sector. In today’s Cuba, 84 percent of all workers are employed in the public sector.
This can span any number of generally private tasks including taxicab drivers, barbers, and doctors.

This is all changing. In a move to escape its crushing debt, Cuba is planning on laying off hundreds of
thousands of public sector employees. “Our state cannot and should not continue maintaining
companies, productive entities, services and budgeted sectors with bloated payrolls [and] losses that
hurt the economy,” the nation’s trade Union Federation said.
Cuba’s President Raul Castro was even more blunt, “we have to erase forever the nation that Cuba is the
only country in the world where on can live without working.” That is exactly the problem that has
undermined the Socialist model – there is no incentive for productivity gains, no competition for lower
prices, and no desire for innovation for better products. With state owned businesses stagnating it
becomes impossible to keep the already fragile house of cards from collapsing completely. The
recession was the final blow, encouraging even the most ardent Socialists to see the long-term failure of
their beloved model.

Cuba cannot just slash the size of government and expect the nation to heal. That is why Castro’s is
formulating a new plan to actively encourage and foster growth in the private sector in the hopes they
will absorb all of the public sector employees. This new support of the private sector will come with
reformed policies including things such as liberalizing regulation on land use to encourage real estate
development, issuing hundreds of thousands of new licenses to those interested in starting a small
business, and loosening government rules to ease the firing of less productive workers.

Cuba has already began to enact these new policies, it began with a pilot program with taxicab drivers.
In a taxicab garage in Havana, the drivers now lease the cars from the garage, they pay for their own
gas, and their take-home pay is what they make after overhead costs. Essentially, the drivers are their
own private business. The result: productivity is up 55 times the level of last year. Last year the per-taxi
income was $580, this year it is $18,360. Capitalism has, yet again, payed off. Of course the change will
take some getting used to by the workers. “No one hangs around here anymore doing nothing for a few
dollars,” the company bookkeeper said.

Not all Cubans, however, are disappointed with the shift towards privatization. Last year alone there were
93,000 people who applied for a private workers license. Only 23,000 were approved. This was

September Research Compendium! 36


College Republican National Committee

because, as Fidel Castro had always said, “[private businesses] are a necessary and temporary evil.”
With these new policies, a much greater portion of those 93,000 to enter into their own business,
providing them with a sense of ownership that was lost in the Socialist model. Although the next few
years will be tough, as demand and investment catch up with the glut of supply, there is at least a hope
for something more than the $20 a month today’s Cubans earn.

Fidel may still find capitalism repugnant. But by his own admission, in a recent interview with The
Atlantic, “the Cuban model doesn’t even work for us anymore.” As Cuba of all places makes moves to
slash the size of its government should the United States be going in the opposite direction? America,
with its rich history of capitalism, should be wary of placing its faith in government to escape from this
economic crisis. As crazy as it is to say this, perhaps we should look to Cuba for answers to our
problem, at least they are coming to grips with the importance that the private sector has in getting the
economy back on its feet.

Greece or the U.K. – How Will the U.S. Respond to Austerity?

In the wake of WWI, the world was thrown into a global depression. This was far worse than any
recession that has followed. The dominant powers of the day, US, Germany, England, Spain, Italy,
Russia, who controlled the global market, were experiencing massive debt, unemployment, and
governmental instability. Each nation responded in a similar way – big activist governments typified by
nationalism and socialism – that centered around the centralization of government power for the good of
the people.

Centralization was the answer du jour for stronger, more fiscally responsible nations. Unsurprisingly this
experiment with big government proceeded to fail, actually slowing the healing process and leaving
behind bankrupt nations strapped with debt.

Somehow, the United States must be suffering a bout of amnesia, as we responding to our current
economic crisis in much the same way as before. Whereas we are mired in the policies of the past,
much of the rest of the world has been falling away from centralized government in an attempt to
stabilize their limping economies.

The transition hasn’t always been a smooth one. Take Greece. The idyllic Mediterranean nation was one
of the nations most harshly affected by their irresponsible spending. Their deficit was 12.7 percent of
GDP while the standards of the European Union encourage nothing higher than 2 percent. This caused
their national debt to skyrocket to 120 percent of GDP – the result of a bloated public sector and
unsustainable pensions. Their nation is now in survival mode, doing everything they can to avoid
defaulting on their debt.

Austerity has been their answer. In order to cleanse themselves of their past, they have instituted public
sector salary cuts, issued hiring and pension freezes, raised the retirement age, and yes, instituted tax-
hikes.

The Greeks haven’t taken it so well. The extreme cutbacks have resulted in riots. Tens of thousands of
striking workers have clashed with police in an attempt to convince the government to ease its
restrictions. In the most serious of the riots an estimated 50,000 government workers, masked youths,
and civil servants forced police to respond with tear gas and stun grenades. The people, spoiled by
years of government subsidies, were simply unwilling to give up their luxuries, regardless of whether the
government could actually pay for them.

Regardless of the violence the harsh austerity package is something that had to be done. Government
spending was a drug that the Greek had become addicted to. But weaning them of this dependence is

September Research Compendium! 37


College Republican National Committee

necessary for their long term benefit. Sadly, the drugs are always more fun that the withdrawal in the
short term. Nevertheless, by putting power in the hands of the private sector as soon as possible, the
toxins will eventually be pushed completely out of the body.

As the state removes itself from the marketplace in areas such as: health care, transportation, and
energy, these services will have to find homes in the private sector. Prices will eventually return to their
actual worth as private companies will be forced to abide by the free market rules of competition. As
more efficient businesses take hold, goods and services will become more affordable and the Greek will
turn towards long term health. It will not be fun times in the sun for this generation, but it is a necessary
hangover from a long bout of partying.

Many other Western powers have moved away form their centralized government systems. Portugal,
Italy and Spain have been taking steps to make their balance sheets more sustainable. Across the
Eurozone, welfare spending is going down, bureaucracies are being slashed, and retirement ages are
going up. For instance France, who has done comparatively well during this recession, has decided to
raise their retirement age from 60 to 62. In response, millions of people protested this reform, going so
far as to set up fake cardboard coffins marked with things like:

“Here lies Roger. He’s 60, and he died before getting his retirement.”
Change is happening. These Keynesian style governments are realizing that everything comes at a
price; those prices add up. Many Europeans have take it personally, angry that budget cuts are cutting
into their benefits.

But the English are not “many Europeans.” Rather than throw a tantrum at the idea of austerity, many
Brits are embracing it, harking back to the post-World War II era where saving, frugality, and making the
most out of the least were matters of national pride.

Britain’s austerity program is known as the Big Society. Introduced by new Conservative Prime Minister
David Cameron, the Big Society was written with the idea to devolve power from the national
government. This means empowering communities and individual citizens to take ownership over their
own success. A corollary is the federal government doing less, thereby reducing spending, eliminating
wasteful programs, and becoming sustainable in the long term.
Cameron describes the plan in five bullet points:

• Give communities power to control their future


• Encourage a zeal for charitable activity on the community level
• Transfer power from central to local governments
• Give more power to private sectors in public services
• Open government information to the public

In principle the program is not very different from other European attempts at shaving their enormous
deficits. The primary difference comes in the acceptance of the plan by the British people. As Anne
Applebaum said in a recent Washington Post column,

Austerity…has a deep appeal. Austerity is what made Britain great. Austerity is what
won the war. It cannot be an accident that several British television channels are running
programs this year with titles such as “Spirit of 1940,” all dedicated to the 70th
anniversary of that “remarkable year” of rationing, air raid sirens and hardship. One
series, “Ration Book Britain” is even devoted to that era’s parsimonious cooking. “With
bacon, eggs and sugar rationed, wartime cooks had to be jolly resourceful,” explains an
advertisement for the show. Its host promises to “re-create the recipes that kept the
country fighting fit.”

September Research Compendium! 38


College Republican National Committee

The question then becomes, how will the United States respond? Will we take the streets in protest like
the Greek or will we hunker down, pinch pennies, and save our way toward success a la the British?

Are we willing to make budget cuts, even if it means some popular government programs will be scaled
back? Are we willing to accept that America cannot afford its entitlements? Will we save more for our
own retirements? Will we take ownership over our own healthcare? Basically, are we willing to make
sacrifices? These are questions we must ask ourselves.

We must be the ones to ask because the current leadership in Washington sure isn’t. In the years
following the recession the federal government has grown in size, along with our debt and deficits. We
are witnessing a centralization of government unseen since the days of FDR.
While nations like Greece are placing their bets on the free-market principles we once upheld, the United
States is flocking towards the failed model of Greece. We are creating a society dependent on
government welfare, in doing so we should expect a backlash when Washington can no longer afford
such spending. Let’s make the small, yet painful, changes now, before we have to make drastic and
devastating changes later.

Intel CEO Has Harsh Words for Obama’s Economic Plans

Intel has a history of innovation and job creation. Most famously they created the first microprocessor,
leading them to become the primary hardware supplier to the burgeoning PC industry. They now have
approximately 84,000, employing significant numbers of people in nine states. This is a company who
knows a lot about what it takes to be successful. That makes it all the more troubling when CEO Paul
Otellini speak out against the economic policies of the Obama administration.

One of his main concerns is that the United States is doing little to nurture people like himself and
fledgling companies like Intel was in its infancy. As Otellini explained at the Technology Politicy Institute’s
Aspen Forum, “unless government policies are altered…the next big thing will not be invented here.
Jobs will not be created here.”

The reason for the decline? The U.S. political environment has become so hostile to business that there
is likely to be “an inevitable erosion and shift of wealth,” Otellini said. But the underlying problem as
Otellini sees it is that “this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs. And I think they’re
flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working.”
This has led to two distinct problems. First, the policy environment has created a level of uncertainty that
is hindering business growth. “Every business in America has a list of more variables than I’ve ever seen
in my career.” If politicians make the correct decision on things like capital gains tax and pro-business
tax credits then jobs will stay, but if Washington goes “the wrong way, people will not invest in the United
States. They’ll invest elsewhere.”

This is ominous news given Democrats announced plans. Last February President Obama announced
that he plans on raising the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 20 percent – up from the current
15 percent level. This is one of many revenue streams that President Obama is pursuing in an effort to
pay for his big government initiatives.

Second, our high corporate tax rate is deterring businesses from starting up and investing in the United
States. As Otellini explains, “If our tax rate approached that of the rest of the world, corporations would
have an incentive to invest here.” Instead, “Our corporate taxes are twice what they are in the rest of the
world,” causing the U.S. to be a less appealing destination for job creators and investors compared to
places in Asia which are “clamoring” for Intel’s business. The results have been disastrous. In the not so

September Research Compendium! 39


College Republican National Committee

distant past “our research centers were without peer. No country was more attractive for startup
capital…We seemed a generation ahead of the rest of the world in information technology. That simply is
no longer the case.”

Sadly, in Democrats mind, business dampening tax burdens are necessary to pay off our record deficit.
Of course that view ignores the mistakes that gave us the historic deficits of the past few years. In a
separate interview with CNNMoney.com Otellini said that the stimulus “doesn’t seem to be working the
way it is. Swimming pools in Mississippi are not going to create lasting jobs.“ What is needed in Otellini’s
mind is a fundamental change of direction. “The decisions so far have not resulted in either job growth or
increased confidence. When what you’re doing isn’t working you rethink it and I think we need to rethink
some plans.”

Or at least that is what they would do in the private sector. Sadly the Obama administration, where cost
efficiency is apparently of no concern, takes a different view. Rather than try something new, say making
our taxation levels competitive with the rest of the world, we try more of the same failed Keynesian
measures that have failed to get us out of this crisis. “I really think they’re trying,” Otellini said. But given
the enormity of the problems we face, we literally can’t afford to try Democrats’ way for very much longer.

Obama Declares Combat Missions Have Ended But Danger Remains

As “combat missions” have ended in Iraq, many of the troops are feeling disgruntled. Despite the ever-
dangerous job they continue to perform they have been declared “non combat soldiers,” a designation
that many servicemen view as a slap in the face.

The worst part is it appears the designation is the result of President Obama doing his best to live up to
a campaign promise. As Reuters reported yesterday,

The hype around the change of mission, which allowed President Barack Obama to say
he was fulfilling a pledge to start ending the unpopular war, set off complaints among
some soldiers left behind who were no longer viewed as combat troops.

The mission, once Operation Iraqi Freedom is now known as Operation New Dawn, a clear message that
the worst is over, and a new day in Iraq is beginning. Yet our troops are still waking up to the same types
of violence. Apparently the Iraqi insurgency didn’t get the memo that our troops our now “non-combat.”

It all started as a promise made by Obama over a year ago to end non-combat missions led by US
troops. At the time he said,

“Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will
end. . . As we carry out this drawdown, my highest priority will be the safety and security
of our troop and civilians in Iraq.”

Apparently troop morale was not one of his priorities. Obama fulfilled his promise to end combat
missions and withdraw all but 50,000 troops to “advise and assist” the Iraqi soldiers. But what is less well
known is that the remaining troops will continue to engage in counter terror raids, high risk missions, and
dangerous security patrols. In other words, very little has changed but their title. And it is that, which is
making them bristle. As U.S. Staff Sergeant Kendrick Manuel told Reuters,

September Research Compendium! 40


College Republican National Committee

“To us it was like a slap in the face, because we are still here … we are still going in
harm’s way every time we leave out of the gate. . . If a life is gone, it is gone. As long as
we are going in harm’s way, it is not over for us.”

So why make these supposed “big changes” if very little has really changed? Troops are still fighting.
Troops are still dying. But the name changed, a slight, but symbolically important change that has left
troops feeling slighted. President Obama can now say mission completed. Operation Iraqi Freedom is
over and the troop drawdown is complete. But for the soldiers on the ground the mission, and the
danger, remains. The President would be wise to remember that.

Dems Stifle Criticism, Promote False Picture of Obamacare

With elections just weeks away, the Administration is doing everything it can to finesse Obamacare into
looking as good as possible. But, like the old saying goes, you can’t put lipstick on a pig.

Recent calculations as to the health plan’s cost have been less than rosy. Both the CBO and the Center
for Medicaid and Medicare Services have shown that the Democrats’ healthcare bill will do little to keep
federal costs down.

The latest report, compiled by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) shows that not only has the
bill failed to live up to promises. The promises themselves are misleading. Even worse, the government
is using taxpayer money to pay for their misleading information campaign.
In order to convince the American people what a great piece of legislation Obamacare really was, the
Administration sent a mailer to seniors. Among the promises the mailer contained were:

• “The Affordable Care Act passed by Congress…will provide you and your family greater savings
and increased quality of care.”
• “Your Medicare benefits won’t change”
• “Your choice of doctors will be preserved”

But after examining the pamphlet the GAO states that “the brochure overstates some of [the Democrats’
health overhaul’s] benefits.”

“In our view, the brochure presents a picture of [the healthcare bill] that is not universally
shared. For example, two government analyses have determined that [the Democrats’
legislation] reductions in funding for Medicare Advantage may decrease enrollment and
result in less generous benefit packages,” and “significant increases in premiums for
some beneficiaries may be necessary.”

The fact that such misinformation was spread using taxpayer dollars is absurd in and of itself. What’s
worse, while promoting their own views, Democrats are snuffing out any who disagree.
The latest assault comes from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius who wrote to
Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, demanding insurers stop using
“misinformation and scare tactics.” There will be “zero tolerance for this type of misinformation” she
continues.

Sebelius is responding to a number of health insurers who have asked for rate increases between 1
percent and 9 percent for 2011. What she fails to grasp is that the increase is required to pay for extra
benefits required under the Democrats’ healthcare plan.

September Research Compendium! 41


College Republican National Committee

So why does she threaten the insurers attempt to break even? Because, as she says, “according to our
analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact…will be
minimal.” The troubling word there is “some.” Some industry experts believe that the costs of compliance
will be small. This implies that others believe there will be substantial compliance costs that would then
be passed on to the consumer. After all it doesn’t take a genius to realize that increased benefits lead to
additional costs which would drive up the cost of plans.

That word, “some,” has frightening implications. As Eugene Volokh, UCLA professor of law, wrote on his
blog,

If the Administration is threatening to use its considerable regulatory power to retaliate


against insurance companies that, in the Administration’s view, are conveying
“misinformation” — for instance, because their financial analyses disagree with the
Administration’s financial analyses — that strikes me as quite troubling. . .
[E]ven if such action would be constitutionally permissible, it would be quite troubling,
as would threats that seem to hint as such action: It would involve the Administration’s
deliberately trying to suppress criticism of its policies, under a “misinformation” standard
that sounds highly subjective and politically contestable.

What it sounds like Sebelius is trying to say is that there will be “zero tolerance” for dissent. I understand
why Democrats would be afraid of differing views. We were all led to believe that our premiums and the
federal government’s total outlays would be lowered by the Democrats’ plan. Sadly, those realities are
not going to come true. Rather than own up to the law’s failings, Democrats are stifling criticism and
using taxpayer money to promote a rosier picture of the bill. That is something that I, and voters, should
have zero tolerance for.

Democratic Candidates Saying Whatever The Voters Want to hear

They say that history is written by the winners.

Just imagine what would have happened had the British won the Revolutionary War. Would it have been
called the War of Colonial Aggression? Would Benedict Arnold have been revered as a national hero?
Would our forefathers be considered nothing more than a society of menacing rebels? Or, best question
yet, what would today’s Tea Partiers be called?

But it is too late for Democrats to rewrite the history they’ve spent the past two years writing. The
economy is not on the road to recovery. Healthcare costs are going up, not down. Homes are being
foreclosed at record numbers. And the national debt will be a drag on future generations. Nobody wants
to be on the losing side of history. So as Democratic candidates are rapidly losing ground in pre-election
polls, they are attempting to align themselves with a different team. Rather than tie themselves to the
mast of the sinking Obama, Pelosi and Reid ship they are cutting anchor and setting course for less
choppy waters.

Obama, attempting to become a martyr for his own cause, recently said,

“We’re in a political season where every candidate out there has their own district, their
own makeup, their own plan, their own message. And in an environment where we’ve
still got 9.5 percent unemployment, people are going to make the best argument they
can right now. And they’re going to be taking polls of what their particular constituents
are saying, and trying to align with that.”

September Research Compendium! 42


College Republican National Committee

Has President Obama come around to how unpopular his failed policies are amongst the electorate?
Just last year President Obama urged his party members to embrace him and his policies regardless of
the electoral consequences. Republicans “won’t go any easier on you,” he said. So what accounts for
the 180-degree shift in the President’s rhetoric?

It appears as if he, like many Democrats this cycle, have abandoned principle when facing defeat. They
are content to simply stick a finger in the wind, see which way the wind is pointing, and align their sails in
that direction. The unspoken mantra of “win at all costs” has replaced the more principled, if incredibly
vague, “hope and change” as the Democrats election year strategy. Is this really what we want from our
elected officials? We want someone who listens to us. But we want someone to listen not just when it
matters for their reelection. This is a representative democracy after all, but Americans views should be
represented more often than once-every two years and in more ways than just an election talking point.

As Democrats will soon find out, the electorate is smart enough to figure out their attempt at revisionist
history. You can’t vote for the stimulus package, vote for the healthcare bill, and vote for cap-and-trade
and only then “try to align” with your constituents. That is not how history is written.

American voters can look beyond “the best arguments” Democratic candidates can make. They can see
when a candidate is simply parroting what he learned from “polls of what their particular constituents are
saying.” We can see because none of that changes the fundamental damage that has been done to the
country. Government is bigger, the private sector is smaller. Our debt is larger, our chances for a
prosperous future are smaller. Taxes are going up, wages are going down.
Unsurprisingly though Democratic candidates are happily accepting Obama’s offer to throw him
overboard if it means a chance at reelection. I’ve found tons of examples which can be found here, but
Tom White a Democratic House candidate from Nebraska is perhaps the best example yet. In a new
campaign advertisement White actually criticizes the Republican incumbent because “every day, every
child in America grows deep and deeper in debt, thanks to Washington politicians.” But does White
point out that his was the party that sat behind the wheel as the nation sank? No. In fact, he doesn’t say
anything about being the Democratic candidate, instead he brands himself as the “Nebraska
Independence for Congress.”

History is written by the winners. But if Democrats win, what story will they tell. Will they tell the story of
their valiant success in passing healthcare reform and how they saved the economy with their stimulus
plan? Or will they tell the story they’re crafting now – that they are fighting against the Washington
machine and are really fiscally conservative, against spending, and anti-tax? Either one would be a fairy
tale.

United States Falls in Annual Global Competitiveness Report

The World Economic Forum’s latest Global Competitiveness Report is out and the U.S. is falling faster
than the Virginia Tech football team. Having been first for a number of years the United States has begun
to stumble under Obama’s stewardship. Last year we fell one spot to #2 overall; this year we fell two
more spots and reside at #4. Being fourth on a list of 139 nations isn’t exactly awful, but the recent fall is
an indictment of the policies of the current Democratic administration.

The report takes into account numerous variables in an attempt to show the “ability of countries to
provide high levels of prosperity to their citizens.” These rankings are based on many factors like:
macroeconomic stability, innovation, government trust, and labor market efficiency. These criterion are
intentionally general, and very difficult to change over a short period of time. So when the US dropped

September Research Compendium! 43


College Republican National Committee

two spots, putting it behind Switzerland, Sweden, and Singapore, it proves there have been serious
changes in economic policy.

So why is the US falling? The report shows two clear reasons. First, our federal government is standing in
the way of American business growth. When asked what the most problematic factors are for doing
business, respondents said that inefficient government bureaucracy, tax rates, and tax regulations were
three of the top four. All of those are the directly tied to big government stifling private sector growth.
Rather than admit their failures and let businesses flourish under a free market system, the current
administration has taken steps in the opposite direction. Enormous increases in spending and the size of
government under President Obama show his fundamental belief that government rather than the private
sector will be the key to economic recovery.

Second, our national debt is spiraling out of control.


“Continued budget deficits and high public debt are likely to have a negative impact on
productivity for a number of reasons. First, they reduce fiscal flexibility. Because of
higher interest payment on debt, the government will have fewer funds available to
invest in areas that are necessary to maintain future growth.”

Of course, this is merely a strand in the interconnected web of problems. Higher debt also raises interest
rates which make the cost of capital higher. It leads to higher taxes to repay the debt which leads to
investing less and saving more. And eventually it leads to smaller growth, making it even harder to pay
back debt, ultimately spiraling downwards toward default, much like we saw in Greece.

Although this year hasn’t exactly been a banner year for growth worldwide, the United States and its
poor economic policy choices, were hit especially hard. As Irene Mia, senior economist for the WEF
explained, “the US has very important strengths, but macroeconomic stability was a problem
beforehand and the crisis exacerbated it.” Sadly, if President Obama’s budget is an accurate forecast,
our stability will be a problem long after the economic crisis has passed. As the nonpartisan CBO
recently said,

“Further increases in federal debt relative to the nation’s output (gross domestic product,
or GDP) almost certainly lie ahead if current policies remain in place. Unless
policymakers restrain the growth of spending, increase revenues significantly as a share

September Research Compendium! 44


College Republican National Committee

of GDP, or adopt some combination of those two approaches, growing budget deficits
will cause debt to rise to unsupportable levels”.

Basically, we cannot continue to support our spending habits. Failure to change current fiscal policies
inevitably will result in a less-competitive America. As we continue to become less competitive, our
nations GDP will swiftly decline. Republican or Democrat, we all want to have a competitive economy.
Without such, we cannot afford to help our nation excel in anything but poverty. NOW is the time to make
the changes. We need to cut back on spending or raise taxes significantly. Since the later of these is
political suicide, we indeed need to make cut backs, if only temporary. We need to do this now. The
longer we put off the needed reform, the more difficult it will become to resuscitate our crashing
economy.

More Democrats Fighting Obama Administration’s Planned Tax


Increase

We’ve done it. We’ve finally achieved a measure of bipartisan agreement on something. More and more
Democrats are embracing the idea that the Bush era tax cuts should be extended for all Americans.
Does this mean something will actually get done to prevent the tax increase? No. At least not if party
leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have anything to say about it.

As Politico reported today, House Democrats have sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader
Stendy Hoyer encouraging them to reconsider their opposition to the planned tax hikes.

September Research Compendium! 45


College Republican National Committee

“We believe in times of economic recovery it makes good sense to maintain things as
they are in the short term, to provide families and businesses the certainty required to
plan and make sound budget decisions.”

The letter isn’t the only sign of wavering support from Democrats on the issue of taxes. Last week
Democrat Representative Gary Peters said that extending the tax cuts “is the right thing to do, as
anything less jeopardizes economic recovery. Other Democrats who have clearly come out against
President Obama’s plan for ending tax breaks include:

• Jim Himes (D-CT): “The economy has by no means fully recovered, so my bias is that those
high-end tax cuts should be extended”
• Bobby Bright: “Party leaders are not my directors or my boss. My boss is my constituents, and
I’ve heard from a vast majority of my constituents that they don’t believe in tax increases on
anybody at this point in time.”
• Ron Klein (D-FL): “As we work to rebuild the economy, I support a one-year extension of the so-
called Bush tax cuts”
• Gerry Connolly (D-VA) “I think the recovery is sufficiently fragile that we ought to leave tax rates
where they are
• Kent Conrad (D-ND) “My reaction would be don’t cut spending, don’t raise taxes and that would
mean on anyone”
• Harry Mitchell (D-AZ) “I strongly believe that this is the wrong time to let key tax cuts expire. We
need to encourage investment, not discourage it by letting these cuts expire”
• Zack Space (D-VA) equated raising taxes on the wealthy during the current economy to “adding
gasoline to a raging fire.” “We need to keep cutting taxes to spur our economy,

Undeterred by the arguments against raising taxes in a recession, Nancy Pelosi is doing the best she
can to make sure the tax cuts do not get extended. And she’s calling in the big guns to attempt to win
some votes. Pelosi invited well known pollster Stan Greenberg to explain how raising taxes on the upper
class and many small businesses is actually a winning position as they head into the campaign stretch.

This desperate move just goes to show how clueless top Democrats are about the realities of our
economic situation. Republicans and moderate Democrats aren’t fighting against the hikes solely to
appeal to votes in the short term. They are doing it because it makes long term sense to get our
economy back on track. And getting the economy humming will be a bullet point on their resume for rest
of their political career.

They are exactly right. Raising taxes on anyone doesn’t make sense given the economic realities of
today. As moderate Democrats letter to Speaker Pelosi explains,

“While those in the highest income brackets comprise only two to three percent of
American taxpayers, economists estimate that they are responsible for 25 percent of
national consumer spending. As 70 percent of our economy is driven by consumer
spending, this is not the time to jeopardize further growth.”

But. But. But. It won’t hurt you in the elections. Whooosh! That was the sound of the point flying right over
Nancy Pelosi’s head. This issue isn’t about winning elections, it’s about ensuring that we do everything
necessary to get the economy going. Something Nancy Pelosi and President Obama

September Research Compendium! 46


College Republican National Committee

New Report Finds Obamacare Raises Premiums and Adds to Deficit

Obamacare was passed with very specific promises from Democrats. President Obama said “We
[Senate Democrats and the Administration] agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of health
care. Families will save on their premiums.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid added,

“We can reduce the costs of premiums for Nevadans and all Americans. This is one more reason why we
need to pass health insurance now, protecting patients and making health care affordable.”

None of that has turned out to be true. Two new reports out from the Wall Street Journal this week find
that both Americans and the federal government will be spending more on healthcare for the
foreseeable future.

Remembering back to the campaign trail the impact of rising costs of healthcare premiums on families
was the primary reason for reform. We were told that Americans, and America for that matter, could not
afford the path we were on. We were promised change. Turns out that it wasn’t quite the change we were
looking for. Aetna, BlueCross BlueShield, and other insurance carriers are planning on raising premiums
1 to 9 percent. But the rate change isn’t result of the evil corporations trying to screw over Main Street –
it’s the expected costs these companies will bear because of new extra benefits required under the
Democrats’ health care law.

This should not be all that surprising. Less than one month ago a leaked Democratic memo showed that
the party was drastically shifting their attempts to defend their healthcare bill. The memo encouraged
them to abandon the claim that it would reduce costs and instead encouraged Democrats to stress that
they will work to “improve it.” So much for Max Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, claim
that “for all Americans – all Americans – premiums will be lower.”

As it turns out Democrats are about as good at predicting the results of their healthcare bill as they were
at predicting the success of the stimulus. That is to say…not very good.

Individuals aren’t the only ones likely to see a rate increase. A new report from the Center for Medicare
and Medicaid Services finds that the federal share of healthcare costs will continue to soar upward.
According to the report, by 2019 the United States will spend $4.6 trillion on healthcare, up from the $2.6
trillion we spent this year. That is much faster than the expected growth of inflation and faster than if the
law had not been passed.

That is a huge expenditure growth that Washington must find a way to pay for amidst declining tax
revenues and a budget already awash in red ink. As Vice President Joe Biden said at the Health Care
Summit last February, “unless we bend that cost curve, we’re in trouble.” He’s exactly right. Sadly, his
party’s healthcare reform package bent it the wrong way creating costly regulations and adding millions
of people to Medicaid’s rolls.

With all the bad news rolling in it is no surprise that Democrats have gone quiet on healthcare. What was
once supposed to be their clarion call for the November elections has since turned into a dirty word. As
the Wall Street Journalʼs opinion page said today,

‘They’re betting that between now and November, you’re going to come down with
amnesia,” President Obama told a Milwaukee crowd on Monday, vilifying the
Republicans who “helped devastate our middle class.” But it seems as if the real case of
amnesia—or maybe post-traumatic stress disorder—has struck the Democrats, who are
now doing everything they can to help voters forget ObamaCare.”

September Research Compendium! 47


College Republican National Committee

Gone are the days when Democrats thought they could use healthcare reform as a lever to retain the
momentum in 2010. Gone are the days when President Obama had the guts to say that if we don’t pass
healthcare reform “Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More
Americans will lose their coverage…And more will die as a result.”
No, that big-talk has turned into mere whispers. It turns out all those harsh realities exist and possibly
made worse by the passage of healthcare.

I’m not sure whether it was ignorance or ego that led them to believe that the flawed healthcare bill they
passed would actually be a help come November. Regardless, as members of their own party are
tripping over themselves in their attempts to distance themselves from the bill and the administration
who passed it, it has become clear it isn’t. Instead, it has become yet another symbol in the inability of
Washington to match their rhetoric with reality

I doubt any of this news is what Nancy Pelosi had in mind when she said “we have to pass the bill so
that you can find out what is in it.”

Obama’s Attempt to Cast John Boehner as the Villain Fall Flat

Every self-respecting hero has a villain. Someone to provide some contrast; to show just how good they
really are.

Americans have already crafted their villain – the national debt. They are literally terrified by its powers.
To be fair, they have a right to be afraid. The national debt is growing out of control, and worse, growing
beyond our ability to pay for it.

Much to their chagrin, Democrats have become the embodiment of that evil. Under their watch the
annual deficit, the difference between the amount of money our government pays out versus the amount
it takes in, has reached historic levels. As the CBO wrote in their latest Budget and Economic Outlook,
“relative to the size of the economy, this year’s deficit is expected to be the second largest shortfall in the
past 65 years.” The largest of course being last year. These deficits are beginning to pile up, causing our
national debt to double in five years and triple in 10. Sadly, that is not even the most terrifying projection.
According to CBO projections under its “alternative fiscal scenario,” which makes bottom-line
adjustments for likely policy choice, our debt will reach 180 percent of GDP in just 25 years.

Interestingly, President Obama seems to relish the role of villain. Despite bipartisan calls to stop the
spending, he proposed yet another round of government stimulus totaling $50 billion.
Sensing that they are losing the deficit debate (and their hope of maintaining the majority along with it)
Democrats have been scrambling to come up with their own villain. Over the past few weeks it seems
they have conjured one up – House Minority Leader John Boehner.

The recent line of attack began two weeks ago after Boehner gave an speech on the economy in
Cleveland. Democrats immediately leaped into attack mode, believing they could use Boehner as a
weapon against Republicans. DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen said after the speech,

“We will be using it to encourage our candidates to draw a clear distinction between
continuing on the road to recovery or turning back the clock to the failed Bush economic
agenda.”

September Research Compendium! 48


College Republican National Committee

Attempting to establish the theme, President Obama continued painting the villainous picture in his
Labor Day speech. Speaking in Milwaukee, Obama referred to “the Republican who thinks he’s going to
take over as speaker. I’m just saying, that’s his opinion.” Then it got a little more personal, saying “pay no
attention to the man with the fake tan.” Apparently, Boehner is akin to Lord Voldemort, or “he who must
not be named.”

But in a speech yesterday Obama became a little more bold, continuing the Boehner-bashing in a much
more direct manner. In the speech Obama explicitly references the Minority Leader eight times, tossing
in a few more thinly veiled references for good measure. “There were no new policies from Mr. Boehner,”
Obama said, “there were no new ideas.”

Ironically, in arguing that Boehner has nothing but recycled ideas, Obama attempted to pitch one of his
own – another round of stimulus. But the irony was lost on our President who seemed taken aback by the
fact that Boehner “said no to these projects.”

Beyond the substance of the speeches it is clear that Democrats are doing their best to cultivate a villain
that is not them. It is a smart political play. The concept of good versus evil is well ingrained in the
subconscious of every voter. We view politics through a narrative lens, carefully crafting a storyline by
deciding whether candidates are heroes or villains. Democrats are doing their best to exploit this frame
of reference. To which I wish them the best of luck. With unemployment trending the wrong way,
government stimulus a proven failure, and government deficits reaching historic heights, it will be tough
to beat out the national debt as the villain of choice in voter’s minds.

But I don’t expect them to stop trying. Watch carefully in President Obama’s press conference today to
see how many times he invokes the name John Boehner. Will he break his previous record of eight?

Japan and US: Two Innovators Bound to Same Fate

Japan is known for placing a high value on education and technological innovation. They are the home
of such worldwide brands as Fuji, Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, and Nintendo
just to name a few. Yet despite an incredible corporate history their nation is struggling. If we continue
down the same policy path the United States will follow a similarly stagnant path.

Japan’s problems began in 1990s which came to be known as “The Lost Decade.” The 80s were a time
of incredible prosperity. Interest rates were low, research and development was booming, and real estate
prices were zooming skyward. Then the bubble burst. Stock prices crumbled and real estate fell through
the floor, spraying banks’ ledgers with red ink. Credit dried up, investment plummeted, and public
consumption of goods shriveled.

The problem should sound very similar, but how about the responses?

Japan’s response was an utter disaster. A series of governmental missteps that perpetuated rather than
solved the crisis. First, they attempted three major fiscal stimulus packages totaling 6 percent of GDP
(by comparison ours was around 5.7%). They were remarkably unsuccessful, with economic growth
barely topping 1 percent following the government stimulus.

Why were they so unsuccessful? As the American Enterprise Institute explains, “the packages were
poorly directed–largely toward unproductive public works projects and credits to small businesses that
were no longer economically viable.” The government also bailed out many large companies in an
attempt to keep the economy liquid. But many of these companies were only surviving because of the
constant drip of government funds. When the fresh funds stopped the firms collapsed. But their largest

September Research Compendium! 49


College Republican National Committee

policy mistake was raising taxes in an attempt to make up for the enormous government debt caused by
their earlier trials with stimulus. The higher taxes, especially the increase in the consumption tax (VAT),
led to a further reduction in available investment capital and worsened their economic downturn.

Nevertheless, here we stand, our government having followed almost step-by-step the failed
Japanese model.

Poorly targeted stimulus heavily reliant on public sector projects? Check.

Disregarding free markets and creating a moral hazard with “too big to fail” policies? Check.

Enormous government stimulus package followed by looming tax increases? Check.


Pointing out the failures of government policy doesn’t do much good, so what could we have done
differently? Although I don’t dare attempt to create an entire policy prescription, here are some lessons I
learned from studying Japan’s Lost Decade.

First, the government should extricate itself from the folly of stimulus. Federal governments have proved
inept at accurately targeted where money needs to be injected into the economy. Instead, stimulus
creates unnatural disruptions in the economy, the result of money not going where it is needed most. Our
huge monetary investment left us with very little to show for it other than enormous debt.

Second, despite the increased deficit, the government must resist the temptation to raise taxes. The
reckless spending has led to historic levels of debt and deficit which has naturally spooked many
consumers and businesses. They are rightly afraid that the government will eventually be forced to
course-correct, but rather than do so with spending cuts, will increase taxes. Such uncertainty
compounds the economic problems we face. To avoid the same contraction in investment as Japan
President Obama should immediately renounce his plan to raise tax rates on business profits, dividends
and capital gains. These will act as marginal tax increases on the very capital the Federal Reserve has
been struggling to make liquid over the last two years.

Third, avoid deflation at all costs. Japan fell into a deflationary spiral in which consumers had a continual
incentive to delay purchases as real prices continued to fall. In a deflationary economy businesses also
have little reason to invest since simply sitting on cash becomes a great investment. So as consumer
demand and private investment falls, so to does economic growth, thus exacerbating the deflationary
crisis. To avoid this the federal government should rescind any unspent stimulus funds towards a policy
of quantitative easing. This is a process in which the Federal Reserve increases the supply of money by
buying up financial assets – the most helpful in our case being money-backed securities and corporate
bonds. Such a process fights the threat of deflation with the benefit of increasing banks ability to lend
rather than mire itself in underperforming stimulus projects.

History is about learning lessons. Japan and the United States share a heritage of innovation, hard work,
and entrepreneurship. How sad it would be if we also share in their economic woes as a result of
Washington’s stubbornness.

Obama Denies Bipartisan Compromise on Tax Cuts

“Genuine bipartisanship assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the


quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal,
whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority …
negotiate in good faith.”

September Research Compendium! 50


College Republican National Committee

Sounds fair enough, right? This is actually an excerpt from President Obama’s book, “The Audacity of
Hope”. While campaigning for office, Obama led many to believe that he was going to “unite” America.
We were a country that was more partisan than ever, and it was his prerogative to change that.
According to his book, proof in the excerpt above, he believes that compromise and give-and-take are
the hallmarks of this change. I like that. It makes sense. Well said Mr. President! Which then bears the
question, where is this cooperation that you so eloquently spoke of?

Now, to be quite fair, Republicans haven’t been all that enthused about working with Democrats either.
Not, mind you, because they are Democrats, but because the ideas that they have put forth violate the
conservative principles Republican believe is the correct course to get us back on the path to growth

Nevertheless, it appears we have finally, finally found some common ground. Republicans have been
fighting for a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for everyone. President Obama, in a too little too
late attempt to appear fiscally responsible (or is it really just a continuation of social engineering?)
decided that he is going to draw the line on continuing tax cuts for the top earners.
So John Boehner conceded. He backed down from demands of permanence and agreed to extend the
tax cuts for only two years. Long enough to help propel us out of the crisis but short enough that it
wouldn’t have the long-term negative budgetary effects that the President decries.

Peter Orszag, former White House budget director and one of President Obama’s top advisers, was the
first to float the idea of a two-year extension. In a column for the New York Times Orszag wrote that

This month, the Senate will be debating an issue with significant implications for both —
what to do about the Bush-era tax cuts scheduled to expire at the end of the year.
In the face of the dueling deficits, the best approach is a compromise: extend the tax
cuts for two years and then end them altogether

Compromise. There’s that word again. But the former budget director had reasons for allowing the cuts
to remain beyond bipartisanship. He argued that “no one wants to make an already stagnating jobs
market worse over the next year or two, which is exactly what would happen if the cuts expire as
planned.” Orszag explained that higher taxes “now would crimp consumer spending, further depressing
the already inadequate demand” for goods.

A reasoned response from a liberal thinker. Tax cuts aren’t usually his cup of tea, but given the dire
situation of our economy he is willing to concede to a temporary extension of the pro-growth tax cuts.

Sadly the day after Orszag’s column, the New York Times posted a story entitled “Obama is Against a
Compromise on Bush Tax Cuts.” Our president expressed his unwillingness to follow John Boehner to
take a step toward the middle. Rather than shed his partisan pride and give an inch, President Obama
has decided, even in the face of arguments by one of his former top economic advisers, to stick to his
guns. He argues that the nation can no longer afford the cuts (ironically enough on the same day he
formally announced $50 billion in new stimulus). Sadly he is wrong. As Orszag and conservative
economists argue, the economy can’t afford not to extend the tax cuts.

Apparently Orszag was wrong when he said “no one wants to make an already stagnating jobs market
worse.” In his decision to never compromise, Obama does.

September Research Compendium! 51


College Republican National Committee

Michigan’s Conservative Leaders Speak Out to College Republicans

It is amazing how far we have come. Four years ago Democrat Jennifer Granholm won the Michigan
governor’s race by 14 percent over her Republican challenger. But after years of economic
mismanagement that has destroyed the state economy, Michigan, like so many other states, is looking
for a change of direction.

The Republican ticket, headlined by Rick Snyder and Brian Calley, is the embodiment of that change.
Snyder is a man who knows a lot about creating jobs. He was one of the principal founders of computer-
giant Gateway. Not one to be content with success Snyder then went out to found Avalon Investments,
which has invested in 24 technology start-up companies, and Ardesta, which has eight companies in its
portfolio. Between these two companies alone Snyder has created more than 400 jobs in Michigan and
more than 1,000 nationwide.

Beyond job creation he also knows a lot about the importance of young adults becoming involved in
politics. In Snyder’s words, our generation’s involvement is the “once chance” to “reinvent Michigan.” It’s
a big responsibility, but if we’ve learned nothing else from the past two years, it’s that we have to be the
one’s to fight for a better future because you can bet the current leadership in Washington won’t.

In Face of Dismal Polls, Democrats Running Away From Washington

President Obama’s carefully crafted cult of personality seems to be crumbling. It seems people have
finally stopped drinking the Kool-Aid.

A new ABC poll out this week finds that for the first time that a majority of people disapprove of the way
President Obama is handling his job. With their figurehead falling, Congressional Democrats are in the
weeds. The same poll finds that likely voters now favor the Republican candidate over the Democratic
candidate in a generic ballot poll by a 53 to 40 percent margin. That is the largest GOP lead since ABC
first began asking the question in 1981.

The result it that Democrats, who once did everything they could to align themselves with the President,
are now doing everything they can to distance themselves from him.

Take his $50 billion infrastructure plan, the latest in a series of big-spending initiatives designed to kick
start hiring. Surprise, surprise the plan was met with big cheers amongst the labor-union filled crowd in
Milwaukee. But it is receiving much more tepid support among Democratic incumbents in Washington.
As Scott Conroy of RealClearPolitics reported, a top campaign aide to a Democratic candidate said of
Obama’s plan,

“Nothing translates better to jobs than projects on infrastructure, but that being said,
when we have only eight weeks until the election, this is just not what people want to
hear,” the aide said. “And I don’t think anybody who’s up for reelection really wants to try
to sell this.”

The reason? Because voters have made clear again and again that they are tired of Washington’s
addiction to spending. Now, campaigning Democrats are trying to make clear that they have heard the
message. Take a recent TV ad for incumbent Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL) which highlights how he “voted
against the bailouts, against stimulus spending, against the massive government healthcare,” and the

September Research Compendium! 52


College Republican National Committee

“trillion dollar federal budget.” Or Jason Altmire (D-PA) who heralds his independence from Washington
with an ad saying “I like that Jason Altmire is not afraid to stand up to the President…And Nancy Pelosi.”

These are but a few voices in the growing chorus against Washington spending. But spending is not the
only place Democrats are changing their tune. Not too long ago Democratic leaders in Washington were
touting their historic healthcare reform, believing it to be a major accomplishment that they could sell to
voters in November.

Turns out voters want a refund. But what is more surprising is how quick Democratic candidates have
been to offer them one. It seems former President Clinton’s advice to wavering Democrats that, “I think it
is good politics to pass this and to pass it as soon as they can…The worst thing to do is nothing,” wasn’t
exactly true. Now, the few Democrats who didn’t fall for the Clinton-Obama tag-team sales pitch are
doing everything they can to highlight their “no” votes. As Politico reported,

“[P]arty officials in Washington can’t identify a single House member who’s running an
ad boasting of a “yes” vote — despite the fact that 219 House Democrats voted in favor
of final passage in March.
One Democratic strategist said it would be “political malfeasance” to run such an add
now.”

Quite the contrary Democrats are running ads specifically highlighting how they have been against
Obamacare the whole time. Virginia Democrat Glen Nye touting the fact that he “vot[ed] against the
healthcare bill because it cost too much.”

This batch of Democrats doesn’t stop there. If they are against the notion of the any new stimulus funds
and don’t like their party’s signature piece of legislation might as well disassociate from being a
Democrat completely, right? Frank Kratovil (D-MD) uses an add to plug the fact that he is “one of the
most independent members of Congress” and Bobby Bright (D-AL) calls himself an “independent
conservative.”

Democrats are running from everything. One-time party savior Barack Obama? Nope, want nothing to do
with him. Government stimulus in a down economy? Are you nuts, more spending? Historic healthcare
reform bill? Ha, we would have never voted for that budget busting Obamacare. Are you a Democrat?
No, no. Disregard that (D) by our name, we’re really independently moderate Blue Dogs who just listen
to our constituents.

But attempts to shed the Democrat label isn’t the path to winning elections. America needs people in
Washington who stand for conservative values regardless of whether the poll numbers tell them that is
the way to win this year. Big-government, big-spending policies didn’t succeed at anything beyond
burying us beneath a mountain of debt. So voters, don’t be fooled as you watch Democrats flee from a
burning building – they are still the one’s who set the fire.

Trying the Same Thing But Expecting Different Results

Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting different results.” By that definition President Obama has gone insane. Or perhaps he’s not so
much insane as he is just suffering from a bout of memory loss. Does he not remember how badly his
previous effort at pumping money into the economy went? Nevertheless, here we are, a year and a half
later and creeping unemployment remains undeterred by the federal government’s intervention and the
President is pitching another stimulus.

September Research Compendium! 53


College Republican National Committee

By politically necessity this one is much smaller. He’s decided to take a piecemeal approach, breaking
the approach into three prongs: (1) $50 billion in infrastructure improvements, (2) a R&D tax credit
extension, and (3) an investment tax rebate. Nevermind that President Obama attempted to sell his $800
billion stimulus plan last February by listing previous “failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis”
including “that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures.” Sounds to me
like he’s embraced the piecemeal approach. Must be that memory loss.

The worst of the plan is President Obama’s decision to throw $50 billion at infrastructure improvements.
After all, what happened to all those “shovel-ready” infrastructure jobs that the first stimulus was
supposed to contain? An even better question was posed in this Investorʼs Business Daily editorial,

But why in the world do we need another stimulus when we’re not even close to
exhausting the funds allocated for the last one?

This when $275 billion of the original $838 billion has still yet to be doled out. More specifically, less than
a third of the $230 billion allocated to infrastructure projects has been spent. So with literally hundreds of
billions of dollars worth of infrastructure investment still pending, why are we tacking on an additional
$50 billion?

Well, because it sounds good. 150,000 miles of roads will be rebuilt. 4,000 miles of rail will be
constructed or maintained. 150 miles of runways will be rehabilitated.

But while Obama was clear about how many miles of pavement or tracks would be laid, there was never
a hint of how many jobs would be created. Apparently, the government is finally getting out of the “jobs
created or saved” business. What it should be getting out of is the stimulus business altogether. The first
one was an utter failure. In the last quarter the economy grew at 1.6 percent – not even fast enough to
keep unemployment stable, much less than the speed necessary to actually create jobs. In fact the
economy shed 54,000 jobs in August, a depressing finale to what was billed as the “Recovery Summer.”

The only true history made by the stimulus bill was the record levels of debt and deficits it has wrought
upon America’s balance sheet. As the CBO wrote in their latest Budget and Economic Outlook, “relative
to the size of the economy, this year’s deficit is expected to be the second largest shortfall in the past 65
years.” I’m betting you could guess what year had the largest. Things are not projected to get much
better. As the CBO explains, “Beyond the 10-year budget window, the nation will face daunting long-
term fiscal challenges . . . Continued large deficits and the resulting increases in federal debt over time
would reduce long-term economic growth.”
$50 billion is not the cure to our problems, it only adds to them. The economic multiplier effect of
Keynesian economics only works in theory. In the harsh reality we live in businesses care little for
economic theory. They care about their bottom lines. They care about an uncertain policy environment
clouded by an activist government. They care about how much taxes they are going to have to pay now,
and in the future, as we are forced to pay for this unprecedented spending binge.

Democrats have already gone “all in” on their original stimulus package. They gambled with taxpayer
money and lost. Now they want to ante up another $50 billion. But they’ve tried spending us out of this
recession over and over again. Can we really expect different results this time around? A sane question
likely to be ignored by an out-of-touch Washington.

September Research Compendium! 54


College Republican National Committee

Florida’s Conservative Leaders Praise Youth Involvement

Young adults have often been overlooked in politics. Historically, we haven’t voted in as great of
numbers as older Americans which has often led to our interests being ignored when it comes time to
draft legislation. This is changing. Young adults are waking up to the fact that today’s deficit spending is
really just taking money away from our future.

That is why College Republicans are more active than ever, providing an outlet for young adults to
express their frustration with the short-sighted politicians who are running (and ruining) Washington. As
we set out on our grassroots field campaign Operation Red November we’ve had the chance to speak to
some of the future leaders of our party.

Obama Peddling More Failed Stimulus

If, like me, you spent the majority of your Labor Day weekend watching college football and cooking out
then you likely missed President Obama’s enormous announcement. We’re going to stimulate the
economy. I know, I know, it’s an absolutely shocking plan, the likes of which have never been seen or
tried before. Here’s the deal, we’re going to pump billions of government money into the economy, sit
back, and let the economy roll. It’s a surefire plan. Guaranteed results.

Or should I say, guaranteed to fail. There is simply nothing new about President Obama’s latest
Keynesian stimulus package. In 2008, President Bush and Nancy Pelosi teamed up (weird right) and
passed $168 billion in stimulus – a combination of federal spending and tax rebates – that was going to
act as a “booster shot” for the economy. Oops, unemployment continued to skyrocket.

Undeterred, Congressional Democrats, now with President Obama in office, passed an $814 billion plan.
The mother of all stimulus. The largest stimulus package ever attempted. Considering the hype this was
much more than just a “booster shot,” this was the freakin’ cure for cancer. Turns out it wasn’t even
enough to cure our economic woes. The package was famously predicted to keep the unemployment
rate below 8 percent and get the economy back on track to growth. Oops, unemployment remains
above 9.5 percent and new predictions show it rising as high as 10.1 percent next year. Even the most
optimistic of assessments reveal that the stimulus reduced unemployment by 0.7 to 1.8 percentage
points not exactly bang for our buck.
Then we get cash-for-clunkers, the homebuyers tax credit, mortgage relief, and jobless benefit
extensions, none of which was enough to nudge the economy out of the recession.

So after three years and $3 trillion in new federal debt what exactly do we have to show for it? The
economy lost 54,000 jobs in August and the economy grew at a sluggish 1.6 percent in the second
quarter. Neither of these numbers is encouraging. The private sector isn’t even hiring fast enough to
keep up with everyone entering the workforce much less make a dent in the unemployment rate.
Economic growth is well below the 2.5% needed to keep unemployment at its current rate, nevermind
what we actually need to promote job creation.

But here we stand, forced to do something to get this economy on track. Down one path lay more
stimulus. Keynes is beckoning us to follow him down this path. It’s a road we’ve travelled before. It was a
dark economic path, littered with the bodies of failed economies. We ran into a dead-end. Not only that,
we were mugged on the way back, our money ripped from our pockets. Down the second path lay
recovery. The path is overgrown, having not been travelled in quite some time, and its contours are
unclear. It involved less government spending, a dedication to reducing the uncertainty businesses face,
and allowing individuals and businesses to keep more of their money. We can see Great Britain and

September Research Compendium! 55


College Republican National Committee

Germany starting the journey down this road apparently encouraged by what they’ve found.
Nevertheless, we’ve been standing at this intersection for months, debating the merits of each road.

Finally, we’ve taken our first step. And which way did we decide to go? President Obama has led us
down the dark and dreary path of government stimulus. Surely, things will be different this time! That
dead-end will have surely relocated.

Obama’s latest bone-headed stimulus step is $50 billion in new infrastructure spending. Even more
ominous, it was described as the first installment of a six-year transportation strategy. My natural first
response, what happened to the original $105.3 in the original stimulus bill that was designated for
infrastructure investment?

At the time the stimulus was passed President Obama even made a point to say,

“We will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our
national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s.”

What is he going to say to sell us this new bill? It’s the single largest new investment in national
infrastructure since about 16 months ago? Doesn’t quite have the same historical ring. So if $105 billion
in infrastructure investment didn’t create the jobs promised or even put us on the path to, as President
Obama said in a recent speech, having “the best infrastructure in the world,” then is another $50 billion
really going to do much? Seems unlikely.

In his attempts to sell the new stimulus bill President Obama mocked Republicans by saying “We’ve
tried what they’re peddling.” But who is the “they” President Obama is referring to. Because we’ve tried
the stimulus Democrats are currently peddling. We’ve tried it more times than I care to count and all we
have is record levels of debt and deficits to show for it. And frankly, we’re not buying it anymore.

Obama’s New Tax Write-Off A Step in the Right Direction

I don’t get the chance to say this very often, but good work Mr. Obama. After nearly two years and $3
trillion in failed stimulus bills, President Obama’s economic team finally stumbled across something that
could actually help the economy. The President’s proposal, which will be laid out Wednesday in
Cleveland, will allow companies to write off 100 percent of their new investments immediately.

Let’s explain what this is, and what this isn’t. This isn’t a sea change. This is progress. Companies can
already deduct new investment expenses, but current law forces them to spread the tax deduction over
a number of years. The change would allow companies to take the full deduction upfront and thus keep
more of their money now. A good idea, but don’t expect full employment over night. As reported by the
Wall Street Journal,

“N. Gregory Mankiw, of Harvard University, and another former CEA chairman under
President Bush, questioned whether the Obama proposal would have a big impact.
Businesses can already take out a bank loan at extremely low interest rates to pay for
new investments in plants and equipment, but they are not doing so, he said. It’s unclear
why they would make those investments for a tax break.”

Almost regardless of the effectiveness the move signals that President Obama is ready to deviate from
the Keynesian playbook. They aren’t ready to abandon it. Just look at the boneheaded $50 billion new

September Research Compendium! 56


College Republican National Committee

infrastructure stimulus he’s proposing as evidence of that. But they are at least open to new ideas. Isn’t it
amazing what the threat of devastating November losses will do to Democrats once-tightly held ideals.

This should be considered a step forward because it is a plan designed to unleash business investment,
not government investment. The government is notoriously ineffective at picking effective uses for our
money. Given the opportunity they’ll spend $150,000 to see how monkeys react to cocaine (No, I’m not
exaggerating). Fortunately, tax write-offs such as this keep the government’s grubby little hands out of
the equation. Businesses, whose bottom lines are dependent on good investment decisions, are the
ones who get to decide how to spend the cash. This is a much more natural flow of money into the
economy that creates far fewer market distortions and unintended consequences.

The benefits are all speculation. The details of the President’s plan won’t be released until tomorrow. If
you’ve learned anything about the past few years – Obama is extremely talented at making things sound
good, but Democrat lawmakers are equally as talented as screwing it up. As we’ve seen before the devil
will be in the details.

There should also be questions about the timing. Conservative economists have been asking for this
type of credit long before President Obama took office. Economic growth has been stagnant for too long.
Unemployment has been persistently high. So why now? The cynic in me (live long enough in D.C. and
you’ll become one too) wonders if it doesn’t have something to do with the elections.

Democrats’ November fortunes are dimming by the hour. They’re only going to be in Washington for a
couple weeks before returning home to fight for reelection, likely not enough time to pass this legislation
given recent trends. So could it be that this last minute economic push is nothing but a PR move? A
morsel for Democratic lawmakers to take home to their constituents to show that they are doing
everything they can to fix the economy? The timing of the bill is suspect, appearing to be calculated
more on the needs of struggling Democratic constituents than struggling businessmen.

Nevertheless, hopefully this is a positive step forward. A step away from government-centric spending
bills that have done little to kick-start our economy yet have done a lot to mortgage our future. But this is
only a fraction of what needs to be done to unshackle the private sector. If President Obama is truly
serious about saving the economy, and not just the Democratic majority, he’ll focus on eliminating the
economic uncertainty his prior bills have caused.

Democrats’ Breach of Trust Could Lead to Big November Losses

We’re heading into the home stretch. We’ve rounded the final corner and are now speeding towards the
November finish line. If you haven’t figured it out I’m talking about the upcoming elections where
Democrats are trying their best to stay ahead of the Republicans in the race for Congressional control.
But Democrats appear to be running out of fuel, the result of a failed “Recovery Summer” and the
consistent lack of results from their tax-and-spend policies. Republican’s on the other hand have filled up
their gas tank, fueled by voter response to their vision of change.

Voter’s desire for a new perspective in Washington is most clear when there is money on the line. In this
cash-strapped, job-hunting society, the only thing we care about more than money is what diet Kim and
Khloe Kardashian are on this week (or, if you’re a guy, the fact that the NFL starts next week). But still,
money is king. It is what gives us the roof over our heads, puts food on the table, and puts the kids
through college. Without Mr. Franklin and Mr. Grant backing up our country (for me its more like Mr.
Washington and Mr. Lincoln) it will be impossible for us to remain an economic superpower.

This importance is evidence in the polls. According to Gallup, 93 percent of those polled believe that the
economy is at least “very important” in determining their vote in the fall. That is trailed only slightly by job
(92 percent) and federal spending (81 percent). That means three of the top four voting cues all have

September Research Compendium! 57


College Republican National Committee

one thing in common – money – either the ability to earn it or the concern that Congress is mishandling
it.

Saying an issue is important doesn’t necessarily tell you very much, so let’s dig a little deeper into the
numbers. Now that we know everyone is anxious to have a few more greenback’s in their pockets, the
key question is which party do you believe can help you do that?

Of those polled by Gallup, 49 percent believe that Republicans would do a better job at fixing the
economy while 38 percent believed Democrats would do a better job. That’s a +11 for the GOP.
Americans also said they trust Republicans more than Democrats on the issue of jobs, albeit by a
slimmer 5 percent margin. But rather than analyze issue by issue, there is a greater trend at play here.
Of the nine issues asked about in the polls Americans trusted Republicans more than Democrats on
seven of them (and healthcare was essentially a tie).

Democrats have squandered our trust. In October of 2006, just prior to Democrats’ making major gains
following George Bush’s reelection, Democrats led on all eight issues polled at the time. Americans
reward trust and punish any breach of it. We were given reason to hope that the “Washington way
“would be changed. Promise after promise was thrown at us. Everything from a promise to “drain the
swamp,” to a promise to pay for “every dime” of their plans, to a promise that if the stimulus passed
unemployment would fall below 8 percent. But none of it came true. Promises of change were dashed
against the rocks of the same old Washington. Nothing is different, except for now things are worse.

The economy is comatose, largely the result of uncertainty caused by overregulation and the necessity
of tax hikes to pay off our crushing debts. Unemployment remains high because no companies are
willing to make the commitment to hire unless the government makes a commitment to back off. And
federal spending has soared with years of historic deficits still ahead. For better or worse Americans
care a lot about money, and the government hasn’t given us much reason to trust what they are doing
with it. Their seeming addiction to the “spend, spend, and spend some more” mindset is leading us into

September Research Compendium! 58


College Republican National Committee

serious trouble. They spend on stimulus, they spend on bailouts, they spend for healthcare reform. I
can’t even list all their spending bills because I just don’t have the room.

Americans live within a budget. We are forced to balance our checkbooks, keep our accounts in the
positive, and make regular payments on any debts we have. Why should we trust a Democratic Party
who thinks they play by different rules? We shouldn’t. Or given the recent poll results perhaps it would be
more appropriate to say – we don’t. Fortunately, with November right around the corner we’ll soon have
an opportunity to show them just how much we appreciate their breach of trust.

Obama’s Economic Speech Heavy on Rhetoric, Light on Solutions

It must be getting really boring to be one of the President’s speechwriters. How many different ways can
you say the same thing? For over a year now, as employment has remained stagnant despite the
President’s stimulus plan we’ve heard the same thing: “I didn’t get us into this mess, but now that we’re
here I’ve met with some people and we’re working on it.”

So count me as shocked, literally shocked, by Obama’s completely different speech yesterday in which
he clearly laid out answers and a plan to fix this problem. Ah, who are we kidding? It was the same old,
same old speech we’ve heard a thousand times before.

He kicked off the speech by saying, “What we did know is that it took nearly a decade to dig the hole
that we are in, and that it would take longer than any of us would like to climb our way out.” That’s the
passive-aggressive Bush attack. Lamenting how hard he’s been fighting to extricate our nation from this
massive mess and yet the hole is so deep that it is almost fruitless. Nevertheless, ever the valiant leader,
President Obama will continue to give it his absolute best.
To that end, he says “My administration remains focused, every single day, on pushing this economy
forward, repairing the damage that has been done to the middle class over the past decade, and
promoting the growth we need to get people to get people back to work…”

Sadly, whether or not he has been focused, doesn’t change the fact that we’ve seen no solutions.
President Obama is an academic, more comfortable in talking about and debating hypotheticals, than
implementing actual plans. We’ve had a jobs summit, a healthcare summit, and a deficit panel and to my
knowledge nothing has come of any of them. We don’t need talks or lectures, we need jobs.

Moreover, businesses have been clear on how to accomplish that task – get out of our way. Daniel Loeb,
ultra-successful hedge fund manager and one of Obama’s largest campaign backers, has been the
latest in the chorus of criticism. In a letter to investors he wrote that,

“So long as our leaders tell us that we must trust them to regulate and redistribute our
way back to prosperity, we will not break out of this economic quagmire.

Perhaps our leaders will awaken to the fact that free market capitalism is the best
system to allocate resources and create innovation, growth and jobs. Perhaps too, a
cloven-hoofed, bristly haired mammal will become airborne and the rosette-like
marking of a certain breed of ferocious feline will become altered. In other words, we
are not holding our breath.”

Loeb’s not exactly known for holding back.

September Research Compendium! 59


College Republican National Committee

By this we should all know what comes next in the prototypical Obama speech. If you said “small vague
solutions” congratulations, you’re correct, and you’re likely watching too many Obama speeches. Right
on cue Obama spit out the line, “my economic team is hard at work at identifying additional measures
that could make a difference.”

This sounds an awful lot like super-hyped Oval Office speech after the Gulf oil spill in which he
announced that he established a “commission to understand the causes of this disaster and offer
recommendations.” Does any of this really pass for solutions? Obama is great at creating commissions,
setting up task forces, and “working hard” to identify things. But do any solutions really ever get
identified or is this just an attempt to look like your doing something when you’re really not doing
anything. If, after two years and very little economic improvement, the only solution you have is that
you’re going to look for solutions, you really don’t have squat.

Then, and this is the genius of the man, he uses whatever crisis he is talking about to push for his pre-
existing policy agenda. President Obama walked into office with a game plan. In the two years since,
he’s been attempting to fit his problems to the solution and not his solutions to the problems. That is
exactly the reason every bill that Democrats’ pass somehow gets labeled a jobs bill. Nevertheless,
Obama, or Mr. Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste, was at it again, saying:

“Steps like extending the tax cuts for the middle class that are set to expire this year.
Redoubling our investment in clean energy and R&D. Rebuilding more of our
infrastructure for the future.

None of that is new. It’s stuff he’s been talking about since he got elected. If these are the ideas that his
economic team is hard at work creating, then it simply shows they are out of ideas. It’s all well and good
to have an agenda and stick to it, but save us from the sales pitch. We’ve heard it before…many times.

And finally, because no Obama speech would be complete without it, comes the shot at Congressional
Republicans. He argues that there is a jobs bill before Congress but it’s being “held up by a partisan
minority that won’t allow it to go to a vote . . . So I ask Republicans to drop the blockade.” I’ll save you
the spiel on why that’s a distortion of the facts, for that read this. The larger point is that excuses are
really the only solution that the President has perfected. Whether it be Bush, banks, Wall Street, big
business, or Congress, the President has placed the blame for our dire economic state just about
everywhere but with himself. Let’s set aside the petty finger pointing and channel that energy into
crafting some policies that actually encourage our economy to grow. With November elections right
around the corner, count me as skeptical
So there you have it the Obama speech recipe: 2 parts blame, 1 part “we’re trying really hard,” and a
pinch of rehashed solutions, mix until fully blended. Despite the pretty packaging it tastes like what you’d
expect – BS.

New Poll Finds Obamacare Popularity in Tailspin – Taking Dems


November Chances With It

Remember that one health care bill that used to be the center topic of debate amongst political minded
Americans both conservative and liberal? Seems like almost a decade ago we were arguing whether or
not this bill was going to be the demise of American capitalism. It was almost a war-zone with Nancy
Pelosi and John Boehner leading their respective parties, banging the war-drums, armed with their
ideals and ready to battle to the death. For many Americans, when the Democrats passed the bill and
Obama gave his blessing, this seemed to be a terrifying shift towards a welfare state system.

September Research Compendium! 60


College Republican National Committee

It is now nearly six months later, and although much of the mudslinging has died down, the issue still
stands in the forefront of America’s collective mind. What was once supposed to be the cornerstone of
the Democratic agenda, the stunning achievement of a historic Presidency, has seemed to fizzle.

But why it fizzled is unclear. It wasn’t popular when it was passed, it has become even less so after
passage. So what happened? A lack of patience? It’s admitted failure at cost containment in a fragile
economy? A scapegoat for generic voter anger about the state of the country?

Regardless of the reason, a new Kaiser Health poll finds that opposition to the bill has soared over the
past month – rising 10 points to 45 percent. Support for the bill also saw a drop – falling 7 percent to 43
percent – its weakest showing since May.

So much for White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ assertion that “I don’t think it’s going to cost
Democrats the House. I think this will be an accomplishment that members can be proud of — not just in
this election, George, but for decades to come.” Decades to come? Democrats aren’t even proud of it
six months after it passed! Take Democratic Senator Ron Wyden who is attempting to exempt his state,
Oregon, from the individual mandate of the health care bill. As Wyden said in a letter to constituents,

Oregonians have demonstrated again and again that a one size fits all approach from Washington is not
the best approach for the Northwest, and they have come up with innovative solutions that the Federal
government has never had the flexibility or will to implement.

More generally, Democrats have switched their campaign message from defending health care to
stressing a promise to “improve it.”

What a terrible fall from what was supposed to be their signature piece of legislation. On the day that it
was passed Democrats breathed a sigh of relief, believing that they had just made history and passed
an accomplishment that they would be able to fall back on for many election cycles. They realized it was
a hard fought battle and the poll results reflected this fact. But, with a gleam of hope in their eye, they

September Research Compendium! 61


College Republican National Committee

assumed that people were simply so fed up with the process that healthcare’s dismal approval ratings
were just a mirage. Once people begin to see the wonderful benefits people’s cold reception would
begin to thaw.

None of that happened. Very few tangible benefits have taken effect. The CBO and other cost-scoring
agencies have undercut Democrats’ claims that the bill would reduce costs for patients and the federal
government. And the bill’s hefty price tag could not have come in a worse year.

So in a crazy twist of fate Republicans are now the ones trying desperately to keep healthcare on the
front burner leading up to the midterm elections. Democrats are doing their best to, in essence, kill the
bill. Don’t let them hide from their failures. They sold us a bottle of snake oil. The only reason the public
clamored for healthcare reform in 2008 was to address the spiraling costs they were facing, and yet the
bill actually exacerbated this problem. Don’t let these broken promises slide. We deserve better, so let’s
vote for better. Study the Congressional candidates in your district, see how they voted on healthcare
reform, and vote accordingly. We don’t need more of the same. We need real change.

September Research Compendium! 62

You might also like