About Me

Name: Sean Engmann
Email: SMEngmann@aol.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Simplicity

The American people have had it, we're fed up.  Our government is failing us, burying our wants, our needs and our lives under an endless pile of bureaucracy.  Congress passes sweeping reform bills without bothering to read them.  Our president claims that the health care system is broken and can't explain why, let alone explain how he's gonna fix it.  He hasn't read any of the bills, but speaks in generalities and throws around figures.  He doesn't connect on a personal level with the American people, but he is trying to ram through a landmark piece of legislation and dismissing opposition under the auspices of a sense of urgency.  This is after he forced through a massive stimulus package before giving anyone a chance to review and pushing a budget with record deficits weeks later.
 
We Americans want our leadership to represent us, and we want Congress to pass the best possible legislation that makes sense to America.  Americans are willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt if he lays out exactly what the problem is, and how he proposes to resolve it.  Our elected leaders are expected to see common problems, then hash out the best possible solution while explaining to the American people exactly what is going to happen.
 
Barack Obama's press conference today should've laid out exactly what the health care problem is right now, and then simply illustrated exactly what the solution he proposes would be, with a defense of his proposed solutions.  Instead he lays out a dizzying array of figures without addressing any of the issues or the solutions.  Like Ross Perot did in 1992, Obama needed to explain the issue in everyday terms to the people.  The problem is that the theory behind Obama's health care proposal is so faulty and so ideological that the American people would never buy it.  So he chose to use smoke and mirrors.
 
There are far too many similarities littering the government.  Ask an average person what a "refundable tax credit" is, most wouldn't know.  If you strip away the euphemism and simply call it a straight tax cut that becomes a handout if you pay no taxes, you'd get a much stronger opinion.  Our tax code, and virtually every law in this country is filled with this convoluted, euphemistic double speak, and it's taking the power from the people and putting it in the hands of lobbyists, lawyers, accountants and special interests.
 
We need new leaders who will address problems and give answers in straight terms and cut out all the legal speak and euphemisms.  We need to cut out the ideology and do right by the American people.  We need simplicity, simple solutions for problems, and we need people who understand those problems to lead us, not someone who wants to game the system.  People love Obama, but they hate his policies.  They love Obama because he gives a good speech, but when his policies see the light of day, they make absolutely no sense.  We need simple, well explained solutions to our problems, because euphemism and double speak are creating the waste that's destroying our country right now.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ideologues and Special Interests

The American people have had their country and their government hijacked.  The hijackers aren't foreign, they come from within. They don't hide, they live and work in plain sight.  Our government and our politicians don't deter them, they embrace them far more closely than they would a common American.  These people who are destroying our country come from all walks of life, from the right and the left, rich and poor.  They all share one common trait: that they put themselves, their philosophies or their group above their country, and they will scrap for whatever they can get.  They are ideologues and special interests.
 
The American people are tired of ideologues and special interests.  By and large, most Americans, Republican or Democrat, share a common set of shared values and beliefs.  We might differ on a few points of policy, but in general, we agree on the big things.  That's why after 9/11 we were all able to rally around the flag.  The great history of our country stems from its founding, that we the people had the power, we get to tell the government what to do.  To that end, we Americans want leaders who will stand up for us and who will do what's right by the people.  We want our wisest individuals evaluating the evidence and acting in a way that's best for the country, regardless of party affiliation.  That's the type of leader that George Washington was, and that's who we've expected ever since.
 
We Americans share a set of values.  We the people believe that America is a great place where anyone, through dedication and perspiration can achieve anything.  We are the one country in the world where that is possible, and we cherish that.  We believe that the playing field should be level, that the same rules should apply for everyone, rich or poor, black or white, natural born citizen or immigrant.  We believe that everyone should have the chance to succeed.  We believe in responsibility, and that the law should apply equally to everyone.  We believe in property and the right to keep what we have and what we earn.
 
Our core beliefs are very simple, but these beliefs and our rights are being eroded by ideologues and special interests.  The tax code is a perfect example, it is excessively complicated to allow certain groups to find loopholes and avoid paying taxes.  The multiple rates and deductions are mind boggling, but rather than establishing a flat tax we have arrived at this complicated solution because there are a lot of lawyers and accountants who would be out of a job if we reformed the tax code so that it makes sense.  These special interests donate a lot of money to politicians, incidentally.  The ideologues are involved too, demanding "progressive" taxation and wanting to use the tax code to redistribute income.
 
California's a prime example of a state in ruin because of out of control special interests.  Take prisons.  Our goal as a society is to prevent certain activities such as drug dealing from occuring, so we establish laws for prison time.  As we've seen in other countries, imposing harsh penalties will act as a deterrent that will impact supply and ultimately reduce the amount of arrests and people in prison.  Legalization would offer the same result.  The only wrong way to do things is what we're doing now, taking the middle ground, which has led to overcrowding prisons.  So who opposes changing things and doing it right, why the prison guards of course.
 
Ideologues have managed to split Americans into groups.  We have black advocates, latino advocates, gay advocates, etc.  All of these advocates do not care about the general good for society, they just seek the best outcomes for their individual groups.  As a result, they have divided the United States into several Americas and several communities.  These communities have their own identities, and the eventual result will be that members of these groups will identify with their group ahead of America.  This is what's happening in Afghanistan right now and it is destroying our national identity.  Our leaders, such as Supreme Court justices should not be chosen from interest groups out of concerns for a certain group's "vote," rather, they should be chosen because they are the best qualified to protect our Constitution, and the interests of all people.  The problem with ethnic groups as voting blocks is that it's isolating people and dividing the country.
 
It was the yearning for a great, post-partisan leader that led America to elect Barack Obama president last year.  His message of hope and change resonated, as did phrases like, "We are not red states or blue state, we are the United States."  Americans truly felt that Obama was a new generation of leader, one who would cast aside the shackles of partisanship and the special interests and do right by the people.
 
Unfortunately the desire for a great leader trumped a serious evaluation of Obama and we elected an ideologue.  Obama's philosophy is completely contrary to the shared values and beliefs of the American people.  Obama is pursuing policies to dramatically change America, undermining our natural tendency toward self reliance in favor of the government.  He does not believe in equal opportunity, but equal outcomes.  At his core, Obama doesn't believe in the greatness of America, he believes he succeeded in spite of America, and he is looking to overhaul the country as a result.  He is an ideologue, doing things without regard to logic, or what's best for the people, but based on his vision for re-making America.  How else would you explain a policy that states that the way to avoid going bankrupt is to spend more money that you don't have?  
 
America is a great country, but the people need to act now to put a stop to the special interests and ideologues.  The solutions are simple, and they make sense.  We just need leaders who see the black and white of issues and common sense without being confused by the "gray" created by ideologues and special interests to game the system. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Response to Robert Parry's Article

I was browsing Real Clear Politics the other day and I came across this article by Robert Parry entitled: "Republicans: A Threat to the Republic."  It was really some of the most intellectually dishonest crap that I've ever read, but it underscores brilliantly the opposition that we face.  I felt the need to comment, so here is my response:
 
 There are so many faulty and simplistic statements in this article that it’s hard to figure out where to begin my response.  I’ll start with the title, “Republicans, A Threat to the Republic?” I cannot underscore enough how scary it is that someone can even contemplate the point that the party in the extreme minority, the ONLY opposition to this administration, the only check on its power, can be contemplated as a threat to the Republic.  That mentality is despotic and astonishing, especially coming from someone who was undoubtedly decrying the Bush Administration for being too authoritarian.
 
Say what you will about George W. Bush and his policies, but he accomplished his primary objective in keeping the American people safe from a terror attack after 9/11 and bringing the fight to the terrorists.  Say what you will about our motivations for going into Iraq, but we now have a democracy there rather than a brutal, unstable tyrant, and the seeds of democracy are spreading throughout the region.  He won election, and was re-elected by a comfortable margin in 2004.  He is no lightweight, and history will be the judge of his presidency.  Attacking Reagan as a lightweight, out of touch with reality, was much more popular when he was alive than it is now.  While the left derided Reagan and feared a nuclear war, it was precisely those policies that brought the USSR to its knees.  Reagan inherited an economy in shambles and by the end of his term, he had laid the groundwork for 20 years of prosperity.  He is already remembered, and will always be considered as one of the greatest presidents in American history.

One thing that we agree on is that deficits are bad, but the deficits are created not by tax cuts, which have consistently spurred the economy forward, but on reckless spending policies.  The argument for lowering taxes is that it will lead to economic growth, and ultimately more tax revenue.  The Bush “tax cuts for the rich” led to growth and increased revenue for the government.  From 2001-2006 tax revenues collected from the top 1% rose from $301B to $408B and the share of total tax payments paid by the top 10% went from 64.89% to 70.79%.  Revenues did not fall off, spending just exceeded it.

So, clearly the remedy to deficits is to increase government spending using a flawed Keynesian model, right?  Obama’s response was to propose a budget which had a deficit higher than the combined deficits of all of the previous budgets in US history.  That seems sane.  He also wants to create massive new entitlements which will inevitably lead to health care rationing, as well as an experimental cap and trade system that puts environmental theory ahead of needs of struggling American companies.  The intellectual response to Bush’s foreign policy that has kept us safe has been to run around apologizing to other countries, to offer to negotiate with a government in Iran while it is repressing its citizens after a sham election and to support the ousted President of Honduras who tried to trample over that country’s Constitution.  I guess we can expect more of this enlightened leadership, especially when we demagogue the opposition by calling them a threat to the republic.  Come on.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Russia: Immune from Obamamania

The global Obama love-fest hit a speed bump this week in Russia where a funny thing happened: the Russian people and their leaders greeted Obama with skepticism.  The soaring rhetoric that has wooed audiences from Prague to Cairo met a tepid response at the New Economic School yesterday.  Perhaps the best line in response to the speech came from Sergei Markov, a parliamentary deputy in Putin's United Russia Party, who said, "We are maybe the one country in the world where there is no Obamamania, for us he is not the president of the world but the President of the United States of America."  Bravo, Mr. Markov, that's exactly what we want our leader to be, America's leader first who happens to lead the world.  Unfortunately, we have a megalomanic as President who routinely puts himself and his grandiose vision above the United States.
 
The whole Obama global tour has had the principle aim of putting person above country and ideology above strategy.  The theme of the speech in Russia was very similar to that of Cairo, that we should hit some sort of reset button and start our relations anew.  Why hit the reset button when you are ahead in the game?  High level rhetoric does little to heal wounds on either side, and in fact, Obama's reset strategy gives legitimacy to those who feel that they have grievances against America.  Compromising our interests does not lead to goodwill, rather, it opens us up to further exploitation.  History has shown time and again that the future does not belong to the faint of heart, no matter how "enlightened" or educated, it belongs to the brave and the bold.
 
Obama's tarnishing of our country around the world is shameful, but it illustrates exactly who the man is and what he believes.  Obama does not identify himself as an American at heart, but rather a citizen of the world.  He doesn't believe that his success is a story of the American Dream, a product of our great country that could not happen anywhere else, on the contrary, he believes that he, by himself was able to overcome a rigged, racist, unjust American system in order to become President.  I doubt he attributes any of his success to the greatness of this country, which is ironic considering that many voted for him because they were inspired by what his story illustrated was possible in this country.  Abroad, Obama believes that America is an unjust, imperialistic, meddling country, which is why he has been so soft abroad.  He doesn't think that America should be the leader of the world, but rather a member of a global community, so he is consciously weakening us.
 
Perhaps the reason why the Russian people greeted Obama so tepidly was because in their long history, they have seen this play before.  The Russians have lived under oppression for centuries in their history, so it is typical that they would greet the next messiah with skepticism.  The Russian leaders, though, are all too happy to indulge in Obama's visit as he represents the weakest American leader since Jimmy Carter and they can use his rhetoric to get easy concessions like the US's abandoning of missile defense in central Europe.  With Putin as a fiercely nationalistic, tough leader, I can only pray thay we are not facing a reversal of Reagan-Gorbachev.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »