Democrat Politicians

by

The Tale of Two Campaign Strategies

It is now clear what the campaign styles are going to be with Governor Romney and President Obama.  I decided I would write about this because a lot of impatient Republicans are getting anxious and demanding that Romney goes on the attack in a way that John McCain never did.  However, if you understand the strategy as I think I do (though I could be completely wrong), you’ll have a great appreciation for what the Romney camp is doing.

First, I wanted to discuss the Obama campaign strategy, which is very much like Obama’s presidency: spend, spend, spend and talk, talk, talk.  The Obama campaign knew all along that their only way of winning was to flood media with negative ads on whomever the competition would be.  It is not a coincidence that Obama spent the last 3.5 years raising money for his re-election.  Already, the Obama campaign is spending millions of dollars trying to define Romney early, much like Bush did against Kerry.  There are three main problems with this portion of their strategy:

  • Money is not coming in as fast as Obama would like; Romney actually raised more money than Obama the past two months and Romney has a lot of Super PAC money backing him too.
  • The number of battleground states are growing, increasing the need for money.  At this point in the election, the Obama campaign would hope that the race would be narrowing, now opening up.
  • The Obama campaign has outspent the Romney campaign by leaps and bounds and yet, the polls reflect a tie right now.  If you’re going to try to start the race fast and hold on to the lead, you need to have a lead to hold onto.

The second piece of the Obama campaign strategy is to get Obama out talking to as many folks as possible.  The one thing Obama has going for him is that his likeability numbers are pretty good, so they want to get him out there to shake hands and kiss babies.  You’ll see a lot of talks so that he can get 30 second clips in the media with him rallying crowds.  The main problem with this is that people have seen Obama talk a million times and each time, it loses its luster and coverage.

Now, onto the Romney strategy.  Imagine if you will a slingshot; at first it would appear that the projectile is going backwards as it slowly gets pulled back, but then in an instance, it is catapulted forward.  Romney runs his campaign very similar.  Do you remember the primaries?  Romney wasn’t aggressive, played it pretty safe, and did not make any big mistakes.  After Newt Gingrich got in the lead and threatened Romney, the Romney campaign (and its supporting Super PACs) overwhelmed the Gingrich campaign with a shock and awe styled campaign and took Gingrich out of the race quickly.  I would look for Romney to hold onto their money until it really matters and then go wild.  In the primaries, he showed he can go after people in the debates, can be just as dirty as the Obama campaign is right now, and he knows when to turn it on.

There are three good reasons why I believe Mitt Romney should not get overly aggressive (as many Republicans are suggesting) at this point in the election:

  • In the summer, most people (besides me) are not hanging on every word that is said in the Presidential election and are probably sick of all the Obama ads already.  They are waiting for the initial noise to stop and the presidential candidates to offer real solutions and policy.
  • The items that the Obama campaign is going after are small potatoes.  They talk about how he carried his dog on vacation, how he may have picked on a kid over 30 years ago, how his company may have outsourced some jobs overseas over ten years ago, and the list goes on.  These are not the issues that are make or break issues for president.  Although it can help paint a narrative, a well timed response in a debate or speech can offset millions of advertisements in an instance.
  • The traditional role of the vice presidential candidate is that of the attack dog.  Usually, the vice presidential candidate is the one that goes after the other presidential candidate and Romney has not picked his VP yet, although it is coming soon.  Allow Romney the time to pick his VP and then let his VP go to town on Obama, without hurting Romney’s likeability ratings.

Romney has a lot of money in his campaign war chest and is using it conservatively.  I would imagine they have plenty of ads ready to go to convince independents to go Republican.  Statistics show that the majority of undecideds at this point will go for the challenger because they know enough about the incumbent, that if they aren’t behind Obama now, there is not much he could possibly do to swing their vote. So relax, the statistics thus give the edge to Romney when the polls are tied and Republicans are in a good position to win!

by

Obama’s New Tax Increase

Obama has tried numerous strategies to try to gain favor and/or bad mouth Mitt Romney in the past months.  It is has been mildly impressive that they have a new attack every week that is completely random, usually not true, but very distracting.  However, last week President Obama got back on what appears to be one of his key messages, that the rich people need to pay their “fair share” and actually presented a policy stance: raising taxes on the “wealthy.”

President Obama said that the Bush tax cuts need to expire for those making more than $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals.  His proposal is a one year extension, just enough to get him through the election.  One of his main arguments was that he wants to return to the same tax rates as the Clinton era.

However, in 2001 (Clinton’s last year as President), the federal budget was $1.9 trillion.  In 2011, President Obama’s federal spending was $3.6 trillion.  In ten years, our government has nearly doubled in size and the President’s tax plan does not get us close to a balanced budget.  Further, I feel his tax plan of increasing taxes on small businesses will be a job killer.  A small tax increase can take away the revenue needed to pay someone’s salary.

The Republicans and Mitt Romney argue that tax cuts are the key to recovery, based on what Reagan did.  The reason it worked for Reagan is that he brought tax rates down by over 40 percentage points, which is a big change that did spur economic growth.  However, all of the Republican proposals I have seen have been less than 5% points, which will not be significant enough to catapult our economy.  As much as I believe in tax cuts, we need to get our spending house in order before we get too aggressive with cuts.  If we cut taxes too much before reducing spending, it could hurt our deficit so much, that it will slow economic growth instead of spur it.

As I have always said, this blog is about solutions.  There are a lot of things I would do such as repeal Obamacare and cut spending drastically.  However, I would go after two things first that are a little less political and could have the biggest initial impact for our economy.  The first thing we need to do is gain some stability, so I would try to get permanent income tax rates versus continually extending Bush tax cuts one year at a time.  Permanency gives stability to small businesses, thus allowing them to plan and hire.  Because this would not be easy, here’s my compromise: make the Bush tax rates permanent, but close loop holes.  The rates keep taxes low, but closing loop holes increases revenues, making both parties happy.  While Republicans may argue that closing loop holes are a net tax increase, I have a different opinion altogether.  Loop holes are, in my mind, unintended tax breaks that lawyers took advantage of, which is not congruent with the original intent of Congress when the code was created.

The second thing I would do is permanently cut the corporate tax rate in half.  Right now, the United States has the highest corporate tax in the world.  Our corporate tax revenue is only 8% of the U.S. total revenues (approx. $180 billion), so it’s impact financially for the government would be small, but the impact for the businesses would be large.  Cutting the rate in half does three key things:

  • It reduces the cost of doing business in the United States, helping jobs come back home from overseas.
  • It increases the ability to hire people and reduce unemployment.  Further, when the money goes to individuals’ income vs. corporate income, it will still be taxed, thus roughly breaking even on net revenue.
  • Last, this concentrated radical change would be just big enough to spur change in our economy.  The tax cut would essentially increase the profitability of every corporation in the United States and help the stock market as well.

The key to problem solving is to start with high impact, low effort solutions (i.e. my two ideas).  Afterwards, you look for high impact, high effort solutions (i.e. solving social security and healthcare).  The two simple ideas I proposed would be easy to understand, quickly implemented, and highly effective in spurring economic growth.

by

Will Rick Perry Will Be the Next President?

Are you looking for a strong conservative candidate? While he has only been running for office for one day, here are some things that Rick Perry is doing well.

Be Positive:

For those of you who know me well, you’ll know that I worked for Governor Tim Pawlenty back in Minnesota and have the utmost respect for the man.  Today, he dropped out of the race because his team did not see a path to victory.  I personally believe the number one reason people did not rally around him is because he focused on the now instead of painting a bright picture.

Pawlenty often told the truth about the crisis we are in and instead of rallying people, it just kind of depressed people.  Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachmann have excited people by talking about how much they dislike Obama and how they are going to get him out of office.  This excites the kind of person who goes to the caucuses, but not the average Joe.

In 2004, John Kerry tried to rally the democrats by saying how bad George W. Bush was and he lost.  Instead of running on how great the world is going to be when he is president, he focused on the negatives of Bush.  Obama on the other hand, talked about how glorious the future would be if he were president and people ate it up.  People actually believed that he’d get rid of politics in Washington D.C.!

The fact remains that being positive leadership motivates people and Perry’s belief in the American dream and the way he talks about how our country’s brightest days are in front of us will catch on with Republicans and Independents.

Results:

Although it is not mandatory to have past results to win a presidential election (see Barack Obama), having the right results in the area that people care about matter.  Since the beginning of our economic “recovery,” Texas has produced roughly 40% of the jobs in this country, all under Governor Perry’s belt.  The general population does not care about the debt limit as much as they do jobs and he has a good story to tell.  Further, Perry has over 10 years experience as governor of one of the largest states.

On the other hand, Barack Obama cannot talk talk about hope and change, because people are tired of waiting.  Unemployment is up, the market is unsteady, consumer confidence is down, and the polls indicate that people do not feel we are going in the right direction.  He does not have any results.

Likability:

At the end of the day, people often vote for who they like.  Perry’s positive demeanor is much more likable than some of the other candidates.  Simple question: when is the last time you saw Romney, Bachmann, or Obama smile?  All of Perry’s competition seems bitter and upset.

Perry is the only Republican candidate that is liked by the Tea Party, the social conservatives, and fiscal conservatives.

Competition:

Mitt Romney’s record as Governor is not amazing.  His signature legislation is Romneycare, which has been a travesty.  Additionally, he is vulnerable in my mind because he was better at creating wealth than creating jobs.  Most of his experience was buying out companies, splitting them up, and making a profit off the parts of the company that had value.  He will be portrayed as a rich Republican that does not care about anyone.

Bachmann has no real accomplishments.  She has not authored any key legislation; she has pretty much just voted “No” on everything.

President Obama’s approval rating today posted at an all-time low of 39% today (with 54% disapproving), according to a gallup poll.  He has not taken a leadership role in many tough situations and his policies have simply not worked.  The economy is in trouble and the electorate are skeptical of Obama’s plans for the future.

A lot can happen between now and November 2012, but I think Perry will most likely win.  I am not officially endorsing Perry yet, but logically looking at it, Perry, who has never lost an election, seems to be the likely candidate!

by

Debt Ceiling Increased – the Wins and Opportunities of the Bill

The House and Senate have voted to increase the debt ceiling.  The bill that passed was definitely a compromise. Before I get into the wins and opportunities of the bill, let me just take a second to clarify what is worst about the outcome of this bill and what the democrats stood for in this debate.

The saddest thing about this deal is that we could have saved trillions of dollars against the baseline by simply freezing our budget. Instead, they assume about a 7.5% annual budget increase and their “cuts” are against the 7.5 increase baseline.  As my father said once, “you can never ‘save’ money when you are spending it.”  If you buy a $100 sweater for $75, you did not save $25, you spent $75.  You may have paid $25 less than the proposed value, but you still spent $75.  The United States may have ‘saved’ a few trillion dollars in this debt deal, but they are still spending many more trillions!

The democrats did not support balancing the budget, they wanted to increase the debt limit with no restrictions. People may think I am mean because I am a republican who wants big budget cuts, but I’d rather be mean than reckless.  Democrats ASSUME that we will always be able to borrow money, but would you borrow to someone that owed over $14 trillion and was borrowing roughly $100 billion more every month?  Do you really feel like someone in that much debt is going to pay off their debt?

The reason our credit rating is potentially going down is because we are not a great investment and it does not appear that we are going to pay our debts back.  Our economy grew 0.4% last quarter.  That is not the kind of return you are looking for as an investor.  Russia’s leader called the United States a parasite on the world economy today.  If countries stop borrowing to us, we’ll either have to stop paying for medicare and social security, because we will not be able to afford it, or we’ll have to print money and have massive inflation.  I feel the RESPONSIBLE thing to do is to make the tough decisions now, to avoid a crisis tomorrow.  Wouldn’t you rather see someone get 90% of medicare for the rest of their life than 100% for two years and then 0% afterwards?  I am not mean, I care about those people that are relying on a promise that may not be kept.

Hopefully this debt deal is a really small step in the right direction.  Below are some of the wins and opportunities of the bill.

Major Wins:

  • America did not default on paying the bills.
  • There were no tax increases.
  • President Obama did not get a blank check.
  • There are some measures in place to look for more cuts.
  • There will be a vote for a balanced budget amendment (which was previously tabled by Senate democrats).
Major Opportunities:
  • The cuts weren’t large enough – from what I read, there will only be $7 billion in cuts in 2012 and $3 billion in cuts in 2013 (less than 0.1% of the budget).  I could cut that in the blink of an eye and no one would even notice!
  • The debt ceiling increase was one of the largest, if not, the largest in United States history.
  • President Obama will not have to talk about it again before the next election because of the large increase to the ceiling.
  • Spending is still increasing, as was explained earlier.
  • There was no transformation on the way Washington works or views taxation and spending.
  • We are still the laughing stock of the world (seriously think about watching this from the outside – we are a smart nation who has elected leaders that do not believe in having a balanced budget, despite massive debt!).  They are looking at us like I look at Greece!
The Tea Party did some great things to make this an issue.  The Republicans were in a tough spot and because of their commitment to their beliefs, the democrats knew they had to give in if they were ever going to pass a bill.  So, it was the convictions and principals of  the tea party candidates that made this a better deal, not their politics.  The deal is not even close to perfect, but I hope all of the attention on the debt ceiling puts pressure on candidates in the fall of 2012 to pledge that they will balance the budget.
by

Debt Ceiling Debate – Finally There is an Acceptable Plan!

In my last posting, I said there were three keys to a ‘successful’ debt debate: deal by August 2nd, major, but gradual cuts, and address entitlement programs.  Boehner and Reid’s plans being proposed probably won’t be agreed upon by August 2nd, they’re not major, and neither address entitlement programs.

Here’s what you need to know:

  • What they do not tell you is that every year, there is an assumed 7.5% increase in spending on autopilot.  So, when they say they are going to save $2 trillion in 10 years, they may be adding around $9 trillion, and then cutting $2 trillion, equaling a net gain of $7 trillion in additional debt. They’d save more if they just froze spending.
  • Despite the Tea Party being mocked, if it wasn’t for them, America would not care about this debt ceiling debate.  The debt ceiling has been raised over 70 times and this is pretty much the first time America cares.
  • There is only one plan being proposed that is worth looking at right now, the Connie Mack “Penny Plan.”  The plan isn’t perfect, but it makes sense.
Before I explain the plan, I should admit that I have not yet seen the actual verbiage of the bill, I have just heard the writers talk about it’s features:
  • The “Penny Plan” is the only plan that has real cuts.  Essentially, the plan freezes spending this year and then cuts federal spending by 1% (vs. raising it 7.5%) every year for the next six years.  By doing this, we would have a balanced budget in 5-8 years.
  • The plan would then cap federal spending at 18% of GDP going forward (which is where federal spending has traditionally been).  A balanced budget amendment would be much more feasible at that point.
  • The plan allows Congress to decide how to make the cuts, but if they cannot decide, it mandates a 1%  across the board cuts.
Although the plan does not address entitlements immediately, the plan is simple and makes real cuts.  The plan has a path to a balanced budget, which could keep our triple A credit rating and put markets at ease about the future of the United States.  Last, at 1% annual spending reductions, the cuts are gradual and humane.  If Congress cannot find 1% in cuts in fraud and waste alone, then they aren’t qualified to be leading our country!
by

Debt Debate – Who Will Win?

Amidst all of the debate about the debt ceiling, my big question is, who will win?  I think this question is particularly interesting because most Americans do not know what side they are on.

First of all, Americans are desperately looking for a solution in Washington and are not finding it from either party.  In 2008, the electorate ran from President Bush and the Republican party to heavily endorse the Democrats.  Two years later, Republicans recorded the biggest turnaround in our history.  Yet, despite the pendulum swinging back and forth, the Congressional approval rating is currently sitting at 18%, according to Gallup polls.

If you look at the debt crisis, 69% of Americans say Congress should not raise the debt ceiling, according to a recent CBS poll.  The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times, but this time it would seem to be different.  Further, 73% say spending too much is to blame for the debt crisis (vs. not taxing enough), according to a Gallup poll.

It would seem that Americans support reducing the deficit by reducing spending.  However, when people are polled about whether they still support cutting spending when the spending cuts affect them personally, the tide changes quickly.  More specifically, people get really nervous when cuts to entitlements (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare), which make up over 50% of the budget, are discussed.  According to Gallup, 66% are worried about cuts to Medicare, and 65% are worried about cuts to Social Security.

Gallup polls also show that Americans are looking for their leaders to make compromises and work together.  I have to give credit to President Obama for announcing today that he is open to increasing the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67, which goes against his party lines.  John Boehner also seems to be willing to negotiate on a lot of issues as well.

Even if Boehner and Obama develop a compromised plan, it is not a guarantee that Congress will vote for it.  When it comes to voting, the politicians that toe the party lines are often the ones that get re-elected.  Michelle Bachmann has become quite popular for voting against compromises, despite her one vote never being a deciding vote.

So who wins in this battle?  I think the only potential victor is the American people if three things happen:

  • An agreement is reached by August 2nd so we do not default on our debts and hurt our credit rating.
  • We need major, but gradual cuts to the long-term budget.  Our annual deficit is conservatively $1.5 trillion, which is $15 trillion of additional debt over the next 10 years or roughly $29 trillion in total debt.  Congress and President Obama have discussed reducing the deficit (not the debt) by $4 trillion over 10 years, which would still make our debt be around $25 trillion in 10 years.  We need major cuts.
  • Entitlement programs have to be changed in a humane, but impactful way.  The entitlement programs are the ticking time bomb, growing at uncontrollable, exponential rates.  If these programs are not changed, then we do not have much hope for a legit solution to our budget issues.

It is going to be difficult to find a solution for this one.  Ultimately, all of the solutions above involve self-sacrifice and personal responsibility by all Americans.  We can either be a nation that fights through a tough problem or we can be a nation that pushes the problem down the road.  Either way, we’re going to have to face these issues eventually.

by

How’d We Get into this Budget Mess?

Making a budget is kind of like trying to lose weight.  If you have ever tried to lose weight, you will find there are a million ways to do so.  You can try this work out or that, this diet or that, or this tool (such as a lap band) or that.  Because all these different options make different people money, the options become more complex.  However, the equation is pretty easy: if you burn more calories than you eat, you’ll lose weight.

Just as money confuses losing weight, politics/power ruin efficient and effective government in Washington.  Government budgets are easy – spend less than you receive.  There are a lot of ways to do that, but we’re still not there.  Instead, games have been played by the Democrats to force Republicans to make the cuts so the Democrats can brand them as the bad guys and try to keep the power through irresponsible governing, inaction, and deceit.

Luckily, there are conservative blogs like this one that tell you the real story about the budget!

Let me walk you through how we got into this budget mess:

  • Federal Gov’t’s fiscal year is October-September.  Last year, the Democrats (who owned the House, Senate, and Presidency) did not pass a budget before the year started.
  • After Democrats lost the election, they passed a budget during the lame duck session (time between election and when election winners take office in January), but the budget was only to last until March 8.
  • When Republicans took over the House, they passed their own budget for the rest of the year that had $61 billion in cuts to discretionary spending (which had seen an 83% increase under Obama).
  • The Senate is supposed to either pass it or pass their version of it and send it back to the House (to begin the negotiating process).  After about 1.5 months, the Senate didn’t pass anything.
  • Approaching a deadline, Republicans in the House extended the budget for another two weeks to give Democrats time to either pass their budget or create their own budget.
  • The Republicans made an offer, but Democrats didn’t like it.
  • President Obama sends VP Biden to met with the House leadership – Biden has one meeting and then leaves the country for two weeks.
  • Approaching another deadline, the Republicans extend the budget another 3 weeks.
  • This Friday, we are now facing yet another deadline and the Democrats still haven’t proposed anything.  There is even Democrat leaders on record saying they are hoping for a shut down to make Republicans look bad.
  • On Tuesday, President Obama had one meeting to discuss the budget and then he left town.
  • Today (Wednesday), most likely bothered by the bad press, President Obama decided to come back and now had another meeting tonight.  Earliest reports indicate they didn’t reach a decision and are talking about another extension to give them more time to figure out the budget.

A few facts to think about:

  • Republicans’ $61 billion in cuts proposal in a $3.5 trillion budget is about 1.7% of the budget.
  • The $3.5 trillion budget has a $1.65 trillion deficit – $61 billion is about 3.7% of just the annual deficit.
  • It took 3 deadlines before President Obama decided to step in.

Democrats have had every opportunity to make a budget and they have not.  If there is a shut down, it is the Democrats fault.  It is amazing that the Democrats still own the Senate and the White House and we don’t know their plan.  Even more amazing is that instead of the Senate passing their own version and starting the debate publicly, 3 people (Obama, Boehner, and Reid) have to sit in private to negotiate a $3.5 trillion budget.  Where are the elected officials from other states?

On the bright side, although the Democrats did not pass a budget on time last year, Republican Paul Ryan has already proposed a budget for next year that actually tries to curb spending.  I am still waiting to hear a real Democrat plan…if they have one.

by

The Struggles of Cutting the Budget

Talk to anyone and they say, “We need to cut spending!”  If everyone agrees, why doesn’t it happen?  I believe it is a struggle to cut the budget because our governmental system has compartmentalized our citizenry.

When our government started, it was simple.  Tax revenue went towards things like roads, standing army, police, and a judicial system.  All of these benefits were accessible to all citizens equally.  Everyone could use the roads, was protected by the army and police, and got a fair day in court.  Now, however, there are numerous entitlement programs and tax incentives for various groups.

Over time, our politicians have tried to protect/bribe different classes of people.  If you earn a lower income, you don’t have to pay taxes and you get welfare.  Elderly citizens get social security.  If you own a business, you get to write off a ton of expenses.  If you are married, you get an extra tax break.  If your income is from capital investments rather than a paycheck, you pay less taxes.  There are many little discrepancies in our confusing budget and tax system.

Have you ever noticed that the debates are seldom on whether we should cut or raise the budget or taxes?  Rather, they debate on who should get the budgetary cut or who should get the raise in taxes.  The reason it is tough to cut the budget is because you have to single out a certain group to reduce the budget.  That group will then say that they are being “targeted” or that it is “unfair.”

If Republicans try to cut welfare, Democrats say they are being mean to the poor.  If Republicans try to cut Social Security, Democrats say they are mean to the elderly.  Because politicians are more concerned with getting re-elected, it is not worth it for them to single out a big class of people.

Further, this compartmentalizing has trained people to vote for the person that is going to get them the most stuff.  Did you know that 40% of adults last year did not pay income tax?  Why would those citizens vote for a candidate that is going to make them pay taxes?

I do not believe politicians should have the moral authority to determine which class of people deserve extra benefits and which ones do not.  I do not believe that our government system was based on treating everyone different, but rather treating everyone fairly and equally under the law.  I do not believe these things because I want to protect the “rich,” but because I want to protect everyone from an unfair system that will ultimately hurt the entire citizenry of the United States.

In the next session of Congress, don’t listen to the lies and politics.  Be understanding that tough decisions are going to have to be made and certain groups may have to take more of a hit because of our current system.  Continue to vote for the conservative candidates that wish to make our government simpler and smaller.

by

Why I’m Worried!

I had a liberal friend of mine ask me, “Why are you so worried about this healthcare bill?”  President Obama asked the same question, making the same joke twice about no meteors falling from the sky and that it is not armageddon.  When I sum up my thoughts on why I am so worried about our country and this bill, it essentially comes down to trust.  My trust has been broken by all of the broken programs that are filled with broken promises that are now financially broke.

There are two main reasons I am worried: past failures and current spending trends.

Past Failures:

It is difficult to say exactly what is going to happen with healthcare.  I have my viewpoints, but I cannot know for sure what is going to happen.  I can merely take what has happened in the past as an indicator of what is to happen in the future.  Here is what I have seen in the past:

  • The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 and has a projected loss of $238 billion over the next decade.
  • Social Security was established in 1935. Some experts say it is already broke, while others state that it will be broke in 2018 because there is a reserve fund that isn’t gone yet.
  • Fannie Mae was established in 1938 and Freddie Mac was established in 1970.  In my opinion, they caused the housing crash and they are broke.
  • “War on Poverty” started in 1964. Around $1 trillion each year is transferred to “the poor” who now feel entitled to programs.  In 2008, we still had 17.9% below 125% of poverty level.
  • “War on Drugs” started in 1969 and right now 40% of our penal system is people in for drug use.
  • Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. If you were to include the money they owe doctors and hospitals, they have an extreme amount of debt.
  • The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before.

As you can see, this is not a Republican or Democrat issue, this is a government issue.  All of these programs have had years to be fixed by politicians and they just keep getting worse.  I simply do not trust that our government will do a good job with healthcare.

Current Spending Trends:

Over time, our government has continued to expand regardless of what party was in control.  Most people do not realize that our debt is getting so bad, that we may never be able to pay it off.  If our credit rating gets bad enough and countries do not think we’ll be able to pay it back, countries will stop lending to us.  I want to illustrate our unsustainable trends through charts.  While the trend shows that it is a government problem, not only an Obama problem, the failure of Obama to stop this trend and actually make it worse is what concerns many people.

It is pretty easy to see that we have a spending problem.

As you can see, our taxes continue to rise over time.


The CBO projected in January of 2009 that each person would have to pay $56,000 to pay off our debt.  That number rose to $72,000 in March, and now they are projecting that number will be at $170,000/person in 2020.  Some analysts think this number is conservative and that it could be much higher.

The bottom line is that conservatives are not just angry about the healthcare bill, they are angry and worried about the future of our country as a whole.  Looking at our past programs’ failures and our current spending trends, I think it is fair and logical to be worried…I know I am.