LRW_Blog

Despite as many as 100 explosions which killed at least 38 people in Baghdad, Iraqis defied a desperate insurgency yesterday and turned out in strong numbers to choose a new Parliament. According to The New York Times, “turnout was higher than expected, and certainly higher than in the last parliamentary election in 2005. … Sunnis who largely boycotted previous elections voted in force, and an intense competition for Shiite votes drove up participation in Baghdad and the south.” The NYT went on to describe the election as “arguably the most open, most competitive election in the nation’s long history of colonial rule, dictatorship and war.”

The United States still has much work to do in Iraq, but yesterday’s successful election is a major victory not just for Iraqis, but for everyone who wants to see peace and prosperity in the Middle East. Unfortunately there is still at least one nation in the region that is bent on seeing Iraq’s democratic experiment fail: Iran. The latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran is set to be released in a few weeks, and many insiders fear it is being tweaked to downplay the danger Iran represents to Iraq, the region and the United States. That would be a mistake.

As CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus told CNN this weekend, “Iran has gone from a theocracy to a thugocracy because of the citizens who are outraged by the hijacking of the election that took place last June.” And this thugocracy has responded to internal opposition by doubling down on their nuclear ambitions. Nobody wants to live in a world with a nuclear Iran, but too often we are told our choices are limited between the Obama administration’s do-nothing Iran policy and all out aerial bombardment. There are other realistic and effective steps that can be taken. Specifically, The Heritage Foundation has outlined Ten Steps to a Free Iran, including:

1. Impose and enforce the strongest sanctions.
2. Drop opposition to U.S. gasoline sanctions.
3. Target public diplomacy to expose the regime’s human rights abuses.
4. Facilitate communications among dissidents.
5. Aid opposition groups.
6. Reduce Iran’s meddling in Iraq.
7. Target covert actions to discredit the regime.
8. Modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
9. Expand U.S. military capabilities to defend U.S. interests and allies.
10. Deploy a robust and comprehensive missile defense system.

None of these ten actions constitutes a silver bullet that could dismantle Iran’s thugocracy, but taken together they give the Iranian people a great hope for freedom. That is what makes yesterday’s Iraqi elections so important. A stable and democratic Iraq offers Shiites an alternative model that helps de-legitimize Iran’s Islamist system. Winning in Iraq can be just the first step to bringing freedom to its neighbor to the North.

Another day, another stream of health care fantasy from the White House. A quick look at two health care events from yesterday, one in Glenside, Pennsylvania, and the other in Tawas City, Michigan, clearly exposes the yawing gap between the Obama administration’s health care rhetoric and cold hard legislative reality. First in Glenside, President Barack Obama turned up the volume on his already tired “final push” for health care reform. In addition to the usual litany of false claims about the legislation in Congress (in fact, you don’t get to keep your doctor, it isn’t paid for, it doesn’t reduce costs) President Obama also repeated his new line from his doctors-in-lab-coats address last week:

We have now incorporated almost every single serious idea from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care … Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill…

But, as we pointed out last week, there is one not-so-minor difference between the Senate bill and the President’s new proposal: the Senate bill actually exists. Now, Democrats may be telling their conservative counterparts that they will have reconciliation legislative text in front of the Budget Committee by tomorrow, but don’t hold your breath. The “fixes” that the White House is promising wavering House Democrats they will make all sound easy at first glance: 1) scaling back the tax on high-end health insurance policies; 2) closing the Medicare D loophole; 3) boosting insurance subsidies; 4) increasing Medicaid payments; and 5) fixing the Cornhusker Kickback. But when you take a second look, you see that all of these “fixes” will cost more money. Just look at the Cornhusker Kickback which the President chose to address, not by taking away Nebraska’s special Medicaid payments, but by extending those extra Medicaid payments to every state! Every single item in the President’s proposal either increases spending or reduces new revenues. And he didn’t put forward any way to pay for them. If passing health reform were as easy as giving away free candy, Obamacare would be law already. Finding a way to pay for all these fixes is going to be just as difficult as every earlier effort to pay for this bill. So don’t expect any solutions anytime soon.

And we haven’t even mentioned “abortion” yet, which brings us to Tawas City where Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) hosted his own health care townhall. Now the Associated Press headline may read “Stupak: Health bill abortion fight can be resolved” but then the AP actually reports “Rep. Bart Stupak said he expects to resume talks with House leaders this week…” In other words, there is no agreement yet. And what kind of timeline is Stupak looking at for such an agreement? WJRT reports: “[Stupak]’s confident a bill will pass sometime this year.” “Sometime this year” is a bit longer of a timeframe than the White House deadline of next Thursday. But even more importantly, look at the process Stupak suggests for final passage: “According Stupak, until the House and the Senate bills and the president’s proposals become one piece of legislation, health care will remain in limbo.” Considering that everyone agrees that abortion cannot be fixed in reconciliation, Stupak’s position is a total rejection of the White House’s current plan to have the House pass the Senate bill now on the promise that the Senate might come back and try and fix it sometime in the future. Stupak clearly wants “one piece of legislation,” and the only way to accomplish that is to scrap the current Senate bill and start over.

In the meantime, legislative “limbo” has not been kind to the Senate bill. Every day seems to bring news of yet another yes vote switching to undecided or no vote. Just yesterday, former-yes votes Reps. Michael Arcuri (D-NY), Dan Maffei (D-NY), Bill Owens (D-NY) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL) all confirmed they were either now undecided or would vote no. And Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL), who voted no the first time, said he would suspend his campaign for Governor just so he could come back to Washington to vote against Obamacare again. The President can travel the country talking about an up-or-down vote for “our proposal” all he wants, but the reality is he simply doesn’t have the votes in the House for the only piece of health care legislation that actually exists.

On March 5th of last year, firefighter Travis Ulerick, of Dublin, Indiana, introduced President Barack Obama at a White House summit on health care. Upon hearing the first rumblings of dissent about the President’s plan, Ulerick tells USA Today he thought at the time: “I definitely think it’s going to have to be a huge consensus.” It’s now 12 months later, and the only consensus that exists among the American people is strong opposition to the President’s health care plan.The White House, however, is now completely uninterested in establishing a consensus for their health care plan before they jam it through Congress. Today, in a speech from the White House, President Barack Obama will urge Congress to move swiftly to pass his health care plan by implementing a legislative tactic that can be used to pass legislation that has failed to gain broad support among the American people. It’s known as reconciliation. Reconciliation has been used in the past, but only for procedural reasons, not because the underlying policy change was unable to muster 60-vote support. So, for example, the 1996 welfare reform law signed by President Bill Clinton was passed through reconciliation, but it also ended up getting 78 votes in the Senate (28 of them from Democrats). President Ronald Reagan also passed seven bills through reconciliation, but every single one of those bills passed through a Democratically-controlled House and won Senate votes from both parties. Never has reconciliation been used to pass any bill on purely partisan lines. In an attempt to provide some political cover for his nakedly-partisan health care push, President Obama released a letter yesterday identifying “four policy priorities” that “I am exploring.” Specifically he is “open” to: 1) random undercover investigations of health care providers that receive reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid; 2) $50 million in cash for states that reform medical malpractice laws in ways the White House approves of; 3) increased spending on Medicaid; and 4) language that clearly allows Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to qualify as health insurance. The White House has not yet released any legislative language for any of these “policy priorities.” In fact, his letter does not even promise that whatever legislation the White House does eventually offer will contain language on each of these issues. He only says he is “exploring” the issues. This is beyond a sham of bipartisanship. Details matter. The American people must be allowed to see real legislative language and they must be allowed the time to read and comment on it before any votes are taken. Most importantly, simply adding so-called conservative ideas to the bill does not change the fundamental direction of the proposal. The bills before Congress, including the President’s new additions, would still result in a massive shift of power over health care financing and delivery of care to Washington politicians and bureaucrats. The public has spoken, and it does not want a federal take over of health care. Julia Denton of Yorktown, Virginia, another of the Obama administration’s hand-picked March 5 health summit attendees, tells USA Today: “The legislation as proposed is so long and tough to read that people are afraid of it. Health care is such a highly personal issue. I cannot see how anyone will win if unpopular reforms are forced through over vigorous opposition.” Denton is 100% correct. The American people should not have unpopular health care reform forced down their throats in the face of strong bipartisan opposition. At a bare minimum they should have the opportunity to see actual legislation from the White House and be allowed to speak to their members about it while they are home in their districts over Easter break. Conservatives should continue to press the Administration and leaders in Congress for bipartisan solutions that are based on elements of common ground, including letting states take the lead on health reform, tackling the tax treatment of health insurance, sensible insurance market reforms, and an honest commitment to fixing existing health care programs that the government already controls. For real bipartisanship to work, the President must set aside the current proposals that are based on consolidating power over health care in Washington and instead embrace solutions that would give individuals and families more control over health care dollars and decisions. Simply adjusting the magnitude of the existing proposals or adding so-called conservative provisions does not change this fundamental direction.

 The more things change, the more things stay the same. A little over a year ago, President Barack Obama came to office expecting to pass a “big bang” of policy changes all in the first year: health care, cap-and-trade, and banking regulation. With the big-bang strategy officially a failure, President Obama’s State of the Union address last night desperately tried to keep all of these legislative efforts alive while also acknowledging that the country has firmly rejected his policy agenda. The result was an incoherent mess of promised tax cuts for small businesses coupled with the threat of tax hikes from his health care and energy proposals; more federal money to encourage banks to lend to businesses, coupled with new taxes on banks and individuals; the continued waste of his $862 billion stimulus plan and $2 trillion in new health care spending, coupled with a delayed and temporary spending freeze. As one of the longest State of the Unions in the past 45 years, we cannot cover everything here. But our crack team of Heritage experts did hit almost every issue last night, and you can read their full reactions here. Highlights include: The New Hire Tax Credit

 The tax credit for new hires is another recycled idea from Washington. Last tried in the 1970s, the tax credit proved to be a windfall for big businesses that were planning to hire anyway. Small businesses, the engine of job growth, did not use the tax credit largely because they were unaware of it and did not understand how to take advantage of the credit. The jobs tax credit proposal will likely also delay hiring since businesses that understand the tax credit now face an incentive to postpone hiring decisions to take advantage of the tax credit. Extending the Bush tax cuts and undoing the heavy taxes in the health care legislation is a better step to job creation than this tax credit.

 The Bank Tax

President Obama tonight called for a new tax on banks and other large financial institutions, “a modest fee,” he said, “to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.” That sounds great, but in truth, the new tax would do nothing of the kind. Mr. Obama knows that almost every major bank has paid-back their bailout funds, with interest. Taxpayers made substantial profits on those repayments. On the other hand, most of the companies that still owe billions to taxpayers, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and auto firms GM and Chrysler, would not be subject to the tax. In short, Mr. Obama would tax those that have paid back taxpayers and exempt those who have not.

 The Spending Freeze

Obama’s spending freeze would apply to a narrow sliver of spending (somewhere around 1/8th of total spending) and at best, savings would be less than one percent of the total budget. Moreover, it explicitly exempts the very entitlement programs driving future deficits. At a time when the deficit is $1.4 trillion and we face a sea of even worse red ink as far as the eye can see, such a freeze is tantamount to bailing out – forgive the double entendre – the Titanic with a dixiecup. And it would start next year, conveniently after the elections. Freezing spending is the right idea, but this freeze falls short of real action.

 Energy Production

His calls for new nuclear power, offshore oil and gas exploration, and other new energy technologies are certainly welcome. The problem is that his program of subsidies, special tax treatment, and government support will not work. While government programs can create jobs in specific sectors, the President ignores the evidence that these programs end up killing more jobs than they create. Spain has already gone down this road, and its experience should give the President caution. Between 2000 and 2008, the Spanish government spent $36 billion in taxpayers’ money on wind, solar and mini-hydro development. Each green job created cost on average $758,471.

 Foreign Policy

Many around the world have expressed concern that a U.S. administration so focused on domestic priorities and troubles as the current one will be too inward-looking to be deeply engaged in the world. Judging by its placement in his list of priorities, foreign affairs did seem like an afterthought, briefly addressed. In Afghanistan, allied nations are hardly coming together to support the President’s surge — indeed French President Nicolas Sarkozy very publicly stated this week that he would not be contributing any more troops to the endeavor, this on the eve of the Afghanistan conference in London. And the fight on terrorism has not, as stated, been advanced by the Obama administration — quite the reverse as the nation has become more vulnerable. Nor has the administration distinguished itself by its support for human rights in Iran — in fact it missed a critical moment to get involved during last summer’s uprisings against the Iranian regime. As for the President’s aspiration to control nuclear materials around the world, a goal to be reached through an international conference — that horse left the barn a long time ago.

In “Government’s End,” Jonathan Rauch writes: “Economic thinkers have recognized for generations that every person has two ways to become wealthier. One is to produce more, the other is to capture more of what others produce. … Washington looks increasingly like a public-works jobs program for lawyers and lobbyists, a profit center for professionals who are in business for themselves.” From complicated new tax credits that small business owners don’t have the time or expertise to take advantage of, to new energy, financial and trade regulations that only large corporations have the lawyers and lobbyists to take advantage of, every policy proposal in Obama’s speech last night is a boon for the lawyer/lobbyist economy in Washington and a hindrance to wealth-creating Americans everywhere. This was a speech only the entrenched interests in Washington could love.

Today marks the one year anniversary of President Barack Obama’s Inauguration as the 44th President of the United States. President Obama’s first year in office was a year of setbacks for missile defense. First, the Obama Administration proposed cutting the missile defense budget in fiscal year 2010 by $1.6 billion compared to the previous year. The Administration scaled back the number of ground-based interceptors on U.S. territory for countering long-range missiles from 44 to 30. It also curtailed the Airborne Laser program for countering missiles in the boost phase, and the Space Test Bed, Multiple Kill Vehicle and Kinetic Energy Interceptor programs were terminated.Missile Defense News
Obama Administration’s New Missile Defense Plan Is a Losing Proposition

Since President Obama took office, the threat to America hasn’t changed, nor has the need to defend the American people. President Obama’s proposal to cut missile defense funding came at a time when rogue states like North Korea and Iran were conducting missile tests of their own. While some Members of Congress, like Representatives Trent Franks (R-AZ) and Michael Turner (R-OH), fought against the cuts, Congress accepted the Obama Administration’s proposal in the Defense Authorization and Defense Appropriations Bills.
The new Administration’s proposal to significantly roll back missile defenses continued in September when President Obama announced that he had cancelled plans for basing elements of the U.S. global missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. This decision was entirely political, designed to appease Russia, but it leaves the U.S. and its European allies more vulnerable to the threat of a ballistic missile attack, especially from Iran.

Finally and most recently, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Obama Administration’s decisions to curtail or terminate these missile defense programs were the result of a determined policy to subordinate missile defense to the pursuit of arms control. It is clear that President Obama cancelled the agreements with the Czech Republic and Poland because the Russians were demanding it in order to move forward with negotiations on a treaty to reduce strategic nuclear arms. However, there is scant evidence that Russia will deliver anything credible in return for President Obama’s abandonment of the missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, especially with regard to the growing Iranian threat. The Iranians successfully tested a space launcher in February and could have a long-range ballistic missile by 2015. The United Nations also confirms that Iran has enough uranium to build a nuclear bomb today. Russia has already rejected calls from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to impose tougher sanctions on Iran and is unlikely to support greater U.N. sanctions against Iran this year.
The actions of President Obama during his first year in office have tipped his hand regarding his future plans to weaken the missile defense program. He has embraced a strategy based on assuring the American people that he favors missile defense because he knows that it is popular with the public, but at the same time his strategy curtails or terminates many promising and maturing technologies in favor of more distant ones. In the end, this will give the U.S. an inadequate or ineffective defense. Congress should demand that the Administration fully fund both short- and long-range missile defenses, thereby preparing America and its allies for all potential threats.

Scott Brown’s remarkable victory in the Massachusetts Senate election speaks loud and clear: Americans across the political spectrum are unhappy with the scale and cost of the congressional health care legislation, and the lack of transparency in the process.
Congress would be wise to see this outcome as a referendum on health care. The proper conclusion?
It’s time to hit the reset button and scrap the doomed bills in both chambers. Then President Obama should bring together the key leaders of both parties, and craft a far more modest approach in an open process that will actually address the concerns of Americans.

What’s Wrong with Obamacare:
Both the predicted and unforeseen costs of health reform have Americans very worried. Though the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scored both bills as deficit neutral, both the CBO itself and other analysts have been skeptical that many the assumed savings in the legislation will come to fruition. For example, the CBO cost analysis of the Senate bill, for example, has to assume that Medicare physician payments will indeed by cut by over 20 percent next year – which is politically inconceivable. In fact, once politicians begin to feel the pressure of interest groups and worried voters, history indicates that Congress will retreat from any unpopular cost-saving provisions used to pay for part of the new spending in the legislation. Thus the cost of either bill would easily surpass CBO’s cost estimate, adding substantially to the federal deficit.

And the price tag isn’t the only problem:

• Government-run health programs to distort and interfere with the insurance market. The House bill creates a public plan as part of a federal health exchange; the Senate uses health plans run by the Office of Personnel Management. Either way, these plans would create an uneven playing field to use the power of the federal government to out-compete private plans.

• New federal regulation of health benefits. This would undermine the power of states to enact their own reforms and the consumer to choose what benefits work best for them.

• Increasing coverage via expanding Medicaid and offering subsidies. These provisions limit consumer options rather than expand them. This is especially true for low-income Americans who will have no choice but to enroll in Medicaid if they wish to obtain federal assistance to purchase insurance.

• An employer mandate. Though the structure of this penalty varies from the House to Senate bill, the results would be the same: employers would find it less costly to pay the fine and reduce wages or number of workers accordingly than to purchase insurance for employees. What is more, the House bill’s mandate would apply to many small businesses, crippling growth during a recession.

• An individual mandate. Both the House and Senate bill would compel Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine. Not only does this raise constitution issues, but is likely to have the opposite affect as many Americans chose to pay the tax rather than buy health care coverage. In cases where the penalty is much less than the cost of insurance (which, in the Senate bill, is practically every case) most Americans would pay the tax rather than buy insurance. This could lead to only the old and sick carrying insurance, greatly increasing premiums.

Americans in Massachusetts and elsewhere are clearly rejecting Congress’ huge and centralizing strategy for health care. So it is indeed time for Washington to hit the reset button on health care reform and start over with the right kind of change that all Americans can support. What’s needed now is a truly bipartisan strategy to:

• Promote rapid state innovation. States should be given more autonomy and freedom from federal statutes and rules to address problems within their respective health care systems in the way they see fit. In addition, Americans should be able to purchase insurance across state lines.

• Reform the tax code in order to establish fairness in the tax treatment of insurance. The current system benefits those who receive employer-sponsored coverage and the wealthy, and does nothing to aid those with lower incomes or who purchase insurance independent of their employer. A cap on the amount of tax excludable benefits would discourage high-cost employer-sponsored plans and provide budget-neutral tax relief for American taxpayers who cannot afford even a basic plan.

• Get serious about entitlement reform. The Medicare and Medicaid programs continue to increase in cost as the population ages and health care costs in general rise. These programs should be reformed to offer better value to taxpayers using a defined contribution system. This would create competition among insurers to attract seniors and the poor as customers, and would give Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries more choice.

Voters in Massachusetts and elsewhere are telling Washington what they think of Obamacare. Now Congress should go back to the drawing board. And this time, instead of pushing drastic reform of one-sixth of the nation’s economy, lawmakers should take their time and get it right, by passing incremental reform that Americans can agree on

On February 11th, President Barack Obama stood on a windy hilltop in front of a dusty construction site in Fairfax County, Virginia, and promised the American people: “Here in Virginia, my plan will create or save almost 100,000 jobs, doing work at sites just like this one.” Standing alongside current Democratic National Committee Chairman and former-Gov. Tim Kaine, the President continued: “Where we’re standing, that could mean hundreds of construction jobs. And the benefits of jobs we create directly will multiply across the economy.” Eleven months later, none of those promised jobs have been “created or saved.” In fact, the Obama administration quietly announced last week that they were dropping the fraudulent “saved or created” terminology altogether.

The failure of Obama’s $787 billion stimulus is particularly acute in Virginia where, as Heritage fellow Ron Utt has documented, despite $695 million in allocated infrastructure funding, only 16% of designated projects had begun. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) even publicly complained about Virginia’s slow transportation spending, writing to Gov. Kaine: “your state ranks last among all states [51 out of 51, including the District of Columbia], based on an analysis of the percentage of Recovery Act highway formula funds put out to bid, under contract and under way.”

But even where infrastructure spending has been spent, the hard evidence shows that there has not been any positive effect on unemployment. According to an Associated Press analysis reviewed by independent economists at five universities, the $20 billion spent nationwide on infrastructure so far “has had no effect on local unemployment rates.” And this was just the most recent embarrassing headline for the White House’s signature economic policy. Since the first reporting deadline in October, newspapers and other media outlets across the country have identified 94,341 fake jobs reported by the Obama administration as jobs “created or saved” by the stimulus. After the Government Accountability Office issued a report finding “significant reporting and processing problems that need to be addressed,” Obama administration spokesman Ed Pound offered this defense of the Obama administration’s jobs numbers: “Who knows, man, who really knows.”

Now Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag issued a little-noticed memo last month ending the “saved or created” metric and instead directing agencies to count only jobs “funded” by stimulus dollars. But as Harvard University labor economist Lawrence Katz tells ProPublica, this is not really an improvement: “I just think it’s a silly exercise.” Instead Katz says a more accurate way to account for the effect of the stimulus is to look at the unemployment numbers put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That is a great idea. The latest BLS report issued last Friday found that the U.S. economy dropped 85,000 jobs in December, bringing the jobs lost total to 2.7 million since the stimulus was passed and 3.4 million since Obama became President. In contrast, the President’s White House Council of Economic Advisers had promised total employment of at least 138.6 million by 2010. Actual employment as of December was reported to be 130.9 million, leaving the Obama jobs deficit at 7.7 million.

The problem with infrastructure spending as stimulus, and really government spending as stimulus, is that Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed. Every dollar Congress injects into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another. Businesses are telling pollsters that among the biggest reasons they are not creating jobs is the prospect of new tax and regulatory burdens. A better solution to reduce unemployment is to simplify and reduce the barriers to business success.

Yesterday, President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and nine other lawmakers met face-to-face for seven hours to resolve differences between the House and Senate health care bills. At the same time these talks were going on, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern and United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger met with other Obama administration officials in a separate room in the White House. This all comes after these same labor leaders met personally with Speaker Pelosi yesterday, and after they met face-to-face with President Obama in the White House on Monday. Despite then-candidate Barack Obama’s explicit promises to the American people, absolutely none of these meetings were open to the public or televised on C-SPAN. In fact, Politico reports: “Those involved in the talks sought to keep details of their progress under wraps.”

And just what deals were Big Labor, the leftist majorities in Congress and the Obama administration making behind closed doors? How to pay for President Obama’s likely $1 trillion health care plan without raising taxes on one of the President’s most loyal constituencies: labor unions. Specifically, Big Labor reportedly has struck a deal with health care negotiators to exempt union members from the 40% excise tax on high-priced health insurance premiums. By some estimates, the tax would hit one in four union members. Now Big Labor will get all of the big government health care spending they always wanted, but they will not have to pay for it.

And Obamacare’s Big Labor handouts don’t end there. The legislation also sets aside $5 billion to subsidize the costs of employer health benefits for early retirees. As Heritage fellow James Sherk notes, few nonunion employers, of course, pay pension and health benefits for workers to retire at 55. And then there’s the small business exemption from the employer mandate for businesses with less than 50 employees. At first this applied to all small businesses, but after aggressive lobbying by Big Labor, non-unionized construction businesses were unexempted. Big Labor lobbyists explicitly admitted they wanted to use Obamacare’s job-killing employer mandates as a competitive advantage to drive non-unionized firms out of business.

So where does the White House and Congress propose to regain the revenue lost from exempting unions from the health care excise tax? The people who fund job creation: investors. The Obama administration wants to apply the Medicare payroll tax not just to wages but to capital gains, and for the first time ever, to dividends and other forms of investment income. This tax will hit seniors the hardest since many of them live off their dividend and interest income, in addition to their pension and Social Security checks. But it also hurts us all since high taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest and business income increase the cost of capital, thus depressing investment at the very time the economy needs new investment to grow and create jobs.

Big Labor’s high wages and inflexible work rules have already bankrupted our nation’s once proud automobile industry. Across the country, their early retirement and exorbitant pensions are bankrupting states. The health insurance excise tax was once the signature health care spending cost cutter of Obama’s entire health care plan. Now it has been gutted at the altar of Big Labor power. The big loser in all of these cases is you, the American taxpayer.

It may have taken President Barack Obama two weeks to deliver a speech on the failed Flight 253 bomb attack without blaming President Bush, but he should still be commended for finally owning up for the massive intelligence failure. President Obama told the American people yesterday: “The U.S. government had the information . . . to potentially uncover this plot and disrupt the attack. Rather than a failure to collect or share intelligence, this was a failure to connect and understand the intelligence that we already had. … Ultimately, the buck stops with me . . . and when the system fails, it is my responsibility.
But while the President is right to admit the system failed and that it is his fault that it did, he is still clueless about why. The President promised he would direct “our intelligence community immediately begin assigning specific responsibility for investigating all leads on high-priority threats so that these leads are pursued and acted upon aggressively — not just most of the time, but all of the time.” And he added: “In addition to the corrective efforts that I’ve ordered, I’ve directed agency heads to establish internal accountability reviews, and directed my national security staff to monitor their efforts.”

But this failure of our intelligence system was not just about lack of accountability. It was about empowerment – or more specifically the lack thereof. The system simply moved too slowly because there was a lack of urgency about the war on terror. Intelligence personnel were not empowered to employ their ingenuity and resourcefulness to connect the dots. Adding layers of “internal accountability reviews” will only make the bureaucratic stupor worse. It is people’s resourcefulness and initiative that will stop the next terrorist attack, not a bureaucratic process.

And from the day he stepped into office, President Obama’s actions have done nothing but kill the initiative and morale of our intelligence employees. From day one, he made it clear that he believes the war on terror is a civilian criminal justice problem to be managed, and not a war to be won. That is why he took the responsibility for interrogating detainees from the CIA and gave it to the FBI. That is why he has failed to seek the renewal of key investigatory authorities authorized under the USA Patriot Act, instead settling for a six-month extension tacked on to the Defense appropriations bill. It is why instead of promising victory in Afghanistan, he sent fewer troops than were required and gave al Qaeda a set date for our withdrawal. It is why he has failed to approach Congress with legislation establishing a legal framework for handling terrorism detainees. It is why he is pushing for Khalid Sheik Mohammed to be prosecuted in civilian court despite his previous guilty plea in a military tribunal. And most demoralizing of all, President Obama has allowed Attorney General Eric Holder to re-investigate nearly a dozen CIA interrogators and contractors for their past efforts in the war on terror.<

This is an issue of leadership. The President of the United States sets the tone and then the message filters down. Our intelligence personnel failed to follow-up on the leads that could have prevented Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from even boarding the plane because their leader had sent the message that fighting the war on terror was not a high priority. Finally, it now seems that the President is ready to start acting like protecting the American people is not just a duty: it is his first duty.