I am deeply saddened by the loss of Margaret Thatcher. Yet another icon of freedom and conservative principles is gone. She stood for free markets, against communism and socialism, and restored her nation’s greatness. We are so starving for this type of resolute principled leadership today and must ensure there is a next generation of leaders waiting to take up the gauntlet.
Read her words, and you’ll understand why I respect her so.
“If you just set out to be liked, you will be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and would achieve nothing. ”
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”
“When I’m out of politics I’m going to run a business, it’ll be called rent-a-spine”
Much has been made of my recent response to a question from a constituent and assertion regarding so-called “communists” in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. I am pleased it has inspired so much passionate debate, for that was precisely the point.
When I was studying for my two master’s degrees in political science at Kansas State University and at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff Officer College, the very best professors were those who would begin each lecture with a challenging assertion. It engaged discussion and analysis, and was the best way to uncover the essence of the particular subject of the day.
As Americans, we must bring to the fore this fundamental discussion of what we want our country to be. Do we veer from our Founders’ vision of a constitutional republic that preserves and protects the individual sovereignty of its citizens, along with the free market and the rights of the several states, or do we continue to slide down this path of expanding the secular welfare state, nationalizing production and enforcing economic equality?
My colleagues in the Congressional Progressive Caucus have taken umbrage with my equation of their ideals with those of communists. Why? Why shouldn’t we have this discussion? What part of their agenda are they trying to hide?
We must be able to openly discuss how our fundamental freedoms are being slowly chipped away by an over-reaching nanny state that has bit by bit slipped its tentacles into every aspect of our lives, from the types of light bulbs we can use to the size of our toilet tanks.
Mr Krauthammer’s op-ed piece clearly articulates Obama’s disastrous bit of wealth redistribution policy entitled the Buffett Rule. It does not impact our debt or deficit and would require some 250 years just to alleviate one year of Obama trillion dollar plus deficits. Bill Clinton pivoted and worked with the GOP led House and Senate, Obama has tripled down. This is a choice between two ideologies which yield two very different futures for America. I challenge my liberal admirers to show me where in the world has a socialist egalitarian State been successful?
At the beginning of his presidency, Barack Obama argued that the country’s spiraling debt was largely the result of exploding health-care costs. That was true. He then said the cure for these exploding costs would be his health-care reform. That was not true.
It was obvious at the time that it could never be true. If government gives health insurance to 33 million uninsured, that costs. Costs a lot. There is no free lunch.
Now we know. The Congressional Budget Office’s latest estimate is that Obamacare will add $1.76 trillion in federal expenditures through 2022. And, as one of the Medicare trustees has just made clear, if you don’t double count the $575 billion set aside for the Medicare trust fund, Obamacare adds to the already crushing national debt.
Three years later, we are back to smoke and mirrors. This time it’s not health care but the Buffett Rule, which would impose a minimum 30 percent effective tax rate on millionaires. Here is how Obama introduced it last September:
“Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a [higher] tax rate than Warren Buffett. . . .And that basic principle of fairness, if applied to our tax code, could raise enough money” to “stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade. . . . This is not politics; this is math.”
Okay. Let’s do the math. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this new tax would yield between $4 billion and $5 billion a year. If we collect the Buffett tax for the next 250 years — a span longer than the life of this republic — it would not cover the Obama deficit for 2011 alone.
As an approach to our mountain of debt, the Buffett Rule is a farce. And yet Obama repeated the ridiculous claim again this week. “It will help us close our deficit.” Does he really think we’re that stupid?