Muncom, E Commerce Cart

President Obama may believe that America’s “reset” policy with Russia is the correct move to cover important foreign policy bases, but the policy is deeply flawed. It puts the United States at a disadvantage we can’t afford and forces us to lay aside fundamental American principles of human liberty.

The “reset” concessions are simply not worth the exchange of empty promises from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who is merely a talking head for Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. As Heritage’s Ariel Cohen & Kim Holmes wrote recently in a memo on U.S.–Russia Relations, Putin would like nothing less than a “Soviet-like superpower prestige and status through forced nuclear equality with Washington.”

The large “reset” payoff requires America put it all on the line by cutting U.S. strategic nuclear forces and engaging in missile defense talks with Russia, in addition to abandoning missile defense deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic and keeping quiet about political freedom violations running rampant throughout Russia. America may never have won the Cold War 22 years ago with policies such as these.

It is imperative that America lead with the cause of freedom and justice when dealing with Russia, or any other nation for that matter. In Heritage’s Understanding America series, Matthew Spalding explains that the United States was founded and thrives on “universal principles that appeal to a higher standard.” Such universal principles of freedom should be the foundation of America’s foreign policy strategy—not an afterthought.

Yesterday at a Heritage Foundation conference focused on the “reset” policy, House Speaker John Boehner (R–OH) recalled the international leadership that prompted America to victory in the Cold War not so long ago. He applauded President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as two who “quite simply, loved freedom…[and] made their feelings well-known, contagious, as if no one or no force could stand in their way.”

Boehner urged America not forget what life was like for the Soviets before these two warriors of freedom refused to stand for it. As Boehner said, “freedom most inspires those who remember life without it.”

While the Obama Administration may believe the “reset” policy as it stands is necessary, the deal raises a lot of red flags. In his paper, Cohen urges that America must not tolerate Russian mischief or fail to make its priorities of freedom loud and clear.

As Boehner said, instead of negotiating with Russia, Washington should call its bluff—“Publicly, forcefully, frequently.” As the leader of the free world, America has a responsibility to remain in control and end the idea that it is “leading from behind” when it comes to Russia.

In a recent memo, Cohen explained why the Obama Administration must stop its policy of “please Moscow” and push Russia to “reset” its own policies. He writes:
Moscow has continuously promoted in word and deed the idea that there is or should be a multipolar world order that constrains U.S. foreign policies. A “reset” policy that ignores Russia’s global efforts to undermine the U.S. recalls the ill-fated détente of the 1970s.

As experts at yesterday’s conference attested, the risks involved in America’s “reset” relations with Russia are many. Foreign policy dealings with any nation—especially Russia—must be guided by America’s Founding values first and foremost. The consequences of doing otherwise will be great.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Take a stroll through your neighborhood Occupy Wall Street protest–whether it’s in New York or Chicago, Detroit or San Francisco–and you’re likely to see a recurring theme emblazoned across cardboard signs: redistribute wealth from the 1 percent to the 99 percent, all in the name of fairness, whether or not it makes good policy. Or if you want to hear that message without fighting the crowds, you could save yourself some time, turn on the TV, and tune in to President Barack Obama’s latest campaign swing across America, this time titled “We Can’t Wait.”

“I’m here to say that we can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will,” President Obama proclaimed in Las Vegas, Nevada. “There is no excuse for the games and gridlock we’ve seen in Washington. Where we don’t have to wait for Congress, we’re just going to go ahead and act on our own.” The actions the President is proposing? More money for “underwater” mortgages and a yet-to-be-announced student loan initiative.

There is no hiding the ball in the President’s populist pitch–and that ball is Obama’s desire to circumvent Congress and enact policies that appeal to his far-left, big-government base, regardless of the will of the people or their representatives in the House and Senate. Obama’s problem is that he failed to convince the American people–and his own party–to pass his latest stimulus plan (a.k.a., “the American Jobs Act”), and now he’s headed into an election season with 14 million jobless Americans, a 9.1 percent unemployment rate, stagnant economic growth as far as the eye can see, and nothing to show for it.

Entirely frustrated by his inability to ram his big spending plan through an unwilling Congress, the President now says that “we can’t wait” for Congress to act. What he’s missing, though, is that Congress isn’t acting because the American people don’t want their representatives in Washington to go along with Obama’s spend-more-tax-more scheme. It seems that the only audience that might be receptive to the President’s message is the protesters who are camping out in solid opposition to the capitalist system, advocating for the government to bail them out, just like it bailed out the banks and the automakers. It now looks like the President is about to oblige and that the “we” he’s referring to is the protesters and him.

Yesterday in San Francisco, the city’s Board of Supervisors held a hearing in which Occupy San Francisco activists urged the board to adopt policies that would prompt big banks to modify mortgages for struggling homeowners, as Bloomberg reports. The President’s latest proposal doesn’t look much different. It would refinance mortgages of homeowners who owe more on than their houses than they are currently worth. The cost of the refinanced loans will be borne by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which means that American taxpayers will be on the hook for the cost. What’s worse, this plan likely won’t be any more successful than the Administration’s previous attempts to shore up the mortgage industry.

It seems that the President is about to address another concern of the “Occupy” protesters–student loans. Many of the activists are complaining about their student loans and the cost of college education and are demanding that the government pay their debts and/or provide free tuition. Though we don’t yet know what the President will propose, we do know that student loan forgiveness and federally subsidized loans are not the way to reduce the cost of education. Heritage’s Lindsey Burke explains:
It is unfair to forgive student loans on the backs of waitresses and construction workers, and the nearly three-quarters of Americans who didn’t graduate college. Increases in federal subsidies or student loan bailouts shift the burden of paying for college from the student – the person directly benefiting from college – to the millions of Americans who did not graduate from college.

Burke also points out that federal subsidies have not reduced college costs. While those subsidies have increased 475 percent, the cost of attending college has increased 439 percent since 1982. As students have more purchasing power, Burke writes, colleges are incentivized to raise tuition. “It’s a vicious cycle that does nothing to mitigate the cost of attending college,” Burke says.

But does bad policy matter to the President? Is his end game to improve America’s economic situation or to appeal to his base? Is he taking cues from Occupy Wall Street protesters as he acts unilaterally to enact tried-and-failed policies? One thing is certain: Regardless of the answer, America cannot wait for President Obama to stop circumventing Congress.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

To hear President Barack Obama describe the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, you’d think it was a long-anticipated political victory, the fruition of a promise he made when campaigning for the White House. But his announcement last week that American troops in Iraq will return by the end of the year is a result of a serious Obama Administration failure that will undermine U.S. security interests in the Middle East.

Speaking on Friday from the West Wing, President Obama wasted no time in reminding the American people that, “As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end,” and that as commander in chief, he was making good on that promise in time for the holidays. What the President didn’t mention, though, was the story behind the headline–that the Administration tried and failed to negotiate with the Iraqi government to extend the U.S. troop presence there in order to ensure the country’s security and stability. The sticking point for the negotiations was immunity for U.S. troops in Iraq. Heritage’s James Phillips explains:
Up until Friday, the Obama Administration had insisted that negotiations were on track for extending the presence of a small residual force that U.S. and Iraqi military leaders agreed were necessary to support Iraqi operations in key areas such as counterterrorism, air support, intelligence gathering, logistics, and training. But Friday, in a hard-hitting article posted on The Cable blog, Josh Rogin reported that the Administration had bungled the negotiations.

Those negotiations stalled, Phillips writes, because Iraqi political leaders didn’t want to risk the political consequences of extending immunity for U.S. troops. And given the Obama Administration’s eagerness to withdraw from Iraq and unwillingness to confront Iran they didn’t want to put their political necks on the line. Now, as a result, U.S. security interests will suffer–bilateral U.S.–Iraqi cooperation in fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq and radical pro-Iranian Shia militias will be limited, and the ability to contain Iran will be weakened. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) criticized the Administration on Sunday, calling the withdrawal decisions “a serious mistake,” and faulted the White House for its failure to negotiate with the Iraqi government:
There was never really serious negotiations between the administration and the Iraqis. I believe we could have negotiated an agreement. And I’m very, very concerned about increased Iranian influence in Iraq.

In the wake of its decision, the Obama Administration is already anticipating the consequences of the power vacuum it has created. In a series of interviews on Sunday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Iran that even though troops will be withdrawn, the U.S. will still maintain a presence in the region. “Iran would be badly miscalculating if they did not look at the entire region and all of our presence in many countries in the region, both in bases, in training, with NATO allies, like Turkey.”

The reality, though, is that the United States has weakened its presence at a time when the region can least afford it. And withdrawing U.S. troops is a stronger statement than any words that can be broadcast on Sunday morning talk shows. Heritage’s James Carafano explains that the White House’s decision is the mark of an Administration in retreat–and why this retreat is incredibly dangerous:
With Syria in turmoil, Iran on the march, a more isolated Israel, and Turkey’s ever-more ambivalent policies, now is the worst time to see a diminished U.S. influence in ensuring continued progress in Iraq. A total troop pullout will leave Iraqi security forces much more vulnerable to terrorism, sectarian conflict, and Iranian meddling, and it will leave them much less capable of battling al-Qaeda in Iraq and pro-Iranian Shia militias.

No American wants to see U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East and placed in harm’s way longer than they have to be. But unfortunately, their premature withdrawal from Iraq could jeopardize the progress that so many American men and women fought and died for. While the President now has a new talking point for the campaign trail, it comes at the expense of national security interests. And it is the Obama Administration’s policies and bungled negotiations that are to blame.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Former Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi is dead from wounds he suffered during his capture near his hometown of Sirte, according to Reuters reports. If the news turns out to be true, it would be great news for the people of Libya who have long suffered under Qadhafi’s tyrannical rule and who have waged a months-long civil war to end the decades-old dictatorship. However, just as the death of Saddam Hussein did not mark the end of hostilities in Iraq and the death of Osama bin Laden did not spell the end of al-Qaeda, so it is also true that much work remains to ensure that Libya’s future is secure.

Qadhafi was reportedly captured in his hometown of Sirte amid news that the Transitional National Council (TNC) finally took control of the city after weeks of fighting. Reuters reports:
National Transitional Council official Abdel Majid Mlegta told Reuters earlier that Gaddafi was captured and wounded in both legs at dawn on Thursday as he tried to flee in a convoy which NATO warplanes attacked.

“He was also hit in his head,” the official said. “There was a lot of firing against his group and he died.”

Celebrations erupted in the capital city of Tripoli, and Libyan Information Minister Mahmoud Shammam said, “It’s a great victory for the Libyan people.” But Heritage’s James Carafano notes that the work is just beginning for Libya’s government:
Libya’s new government has a long to-do list. It can only be hoped that disarmament and reintegration goes quickly and the new government focuses on civil society, economic growth, and keeping out extremist influences.

In August, Libya’s rebel forces took control of Libya and effectively ended the Qadhafi dictatorship. The TNC went on to kill or capture key members of Qadhafi’s regime. However, though the TNC has shown that it is capable of maintaining domestic political legitimacy and authority, it is now responsible for an orderly transition to a new representative government.

The war has left Libya’s population divided according to political, tribal, and local factions. The U.S. should work with the TNC to make sure that Islamist extremists seeking to hijack the democratic process are not successful, and it should be prepared to assist the TNC in restoring the rule of law. And Heritage’s James Phillips writes that securing the Libyan army’s dangerous weaponry, including anti-aircraft missiles known as MANPADS (Man-Portable Air Defense Systems), should also be a high priority.

Though the end of the civil war in Libya appears to be near, now the work of reconstruction begins. Hopefully, Libya can form a new democracy as it clears away the rubble of the Qadhafi regime.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Remember when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said of Obamacare that Congress will “have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it”? Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) is now taking that approach with his attempt to revamp education in America. And just as that strategy was a terrible idea for health care, it’s the wrong move for education, as well.

The Senate today will begin the markup of Harkin’s 860-page proposal to rewrite the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), now known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The proposal amounts to more new regulations and red tape that would be layered on to local school districts, maintaining the status quo of Washington-centric education reform. And the trouble is that the Senate hasn’t even had time to parse through the proposed legislation, let alone hear from those whom it seeks to control. In an exclusive interview yesterday with The Heritage Foundation, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) explained his frustrations with the process:
The bill is 868 pages and we got it yesterday, and I talked to committee members today and said this isn’t the way government should work. I thought we’d have hearings. We’ve had zero hearings on No Child Left Behind. I would think we’d have several significant hearings…Bring in the teachers, bring in the superintendents, bring in the principals and find out more about it. We’ve had none of that, and I think it’s rotten.

Paul’s solution to the problem? He has promised to introduce 100 amendments, including a complete repeal of NCLB, in order to slow down the committee and force them to take time to consider everything that’s in Harkin’s proposal.

And that’s with good reason. The federal government’s heavy-handed, top-down approach in education hasn’t delivered results, as Heritage’s Lindsey Burke writes:
This represents the ninth such bet since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and none has proved successful. NCLB, the most recent reauthorization of ESEA, has left local school districts crying out for more freedom from federal red tape and to have their educational decision-making authority restored.

Burke explains that among the proposals are codifying Obama Administration education priorities, such as the “equitable distribution” of effective teachers among schools and replacing existing federal standards with requirements that states prove they have “college- and career-ready” standards (giving Washington more control over the content taught in local schools). Meanwhile, any state that wants to receive money under Title 1 of the bill–the largest source of federal funding for K-12 education–will have to go along with the Obama Administration’s new Common Core standards regime.

More federal involvement in education is not the way to help America’s students succeed. It hasn’t worked in the past, and there’s no reason to believe it will work again. Meanwhile, ramming through an 860-page proposal that was authored behind closed doors isn’t the way to transparently reform education, either. Burke says there’s a better way:
Instead of, to quote Reagan, another 860 page “bureaucratic boondoggle,” policymakers should work to reduce the federal footprint on education. A good proposal would allow states to completely opt out of No Child Left Behind. A good proposal would allow states to spend education dollars in a way that meets student needs and allow states to enact school choice options for families. But Washington hasn’t learned its lesson after more than four decades of federal failure in education. Because what we’re seeing now is a big government attempt to reinforce the failed status quo.

Slowing down the legislative process and fully considering the ramifications of Harkin’s proposal is a good first start. But the next step should be for Congress to allow states to make their own decisions on how to best direct dollars to meet their needs.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

A new USA Today/Gallup poll shows that when it comes to assigning blame for the country’s economic woes, more Americans point the finger at Washington, not Wall Street. Yet for weeks, the so-called Occupy Wall Street protesters have camped out in the heart of America’s financial district–and have raised their voices in cities across the country and around the world–decrying the capitalist system as the root of all evil.

On Sunday, these anti-capitalist protesters got a helping hand from none other than the President of the United States. Barack Obama was all too glad to lend support to the protests–which have at times been marked by shows of violence and lawlessness–saying during a speech dedicating the Dr. Martin Luther King Memorial that King would have supported the movement. And yesterday, a White House official said that during his latest “jobs” bus tour, the President would be speaking to the “the interests of the 99 percent of Americans”–echoing the protesters’ “99 percent” slogan.

It’s all very ironic. President Obama’s policies have helped create and prolong the economic conditions that are causing America’s frustrations. It’s not surprising that, at a time of 9.1 percent unemployment, there is great dissatisfaction with policies that hurt the economy while helping political cronies and bailing out banks and financial groups.

But the policies that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are advocating–and their rejection of the capitalist system–won’t make the economy any better for the 14 million unemployed Americans and all those who are struggling in this stagnant economy. In fact, many of the demands voiced by the protesters are outright dangerous and would send us further from their own stated goal of improving economic conditions for the “99 percent.”

For instance, calls for severe limits on trade are a prescription for a second Great Depression and would hurt the poor in America and around the world most of all. The same is true for penalizing financial transactions through additional taxation or regulation. Capital is the lifeblood of job creation–starting viable new businesses or expanding existing employment opportunities is impossible without a thriving financial sector.

As the life of Steve Jobs shows, the free market has provided more wealth and spurred more innovation than any other system in history. Much as they try to vilify private enterprise, the protesters cannot deny this fact, especially as they use their iPhones to connect to AT&T or Verizon wireless networks in order to spread their messages on Facebook and Twitter. All of those innovations were bred and put into their hands because of the free market. Capitalism, by which is meant nothing more or less than respect for private ownership and the freedom to transact with other human beings, has provided more opportunity, increases in living standards, and overall well-being for the greatest number than any other system ever devised. It depends on freedom and in turn generates more freedom.

The protesters are right to decry out-of-control bailouts and corporate subsidies. The Heritage Foundation, too, has long denounced out-of-control bailouts and subsidies. Expanding the size of government will not end such policies, however. Instead it will expand them, as Obama’s expansion of bailout programs and support for aid to favored, politically connected energy companies shows. Moreover, while the protesters are decrying Wall Street bailouts, many are advocating for more bailouts for themselves, such as student loan forgiveness and mortgage bailouts. This is just as contrary to the capitalist system as is bailing out failed industries.

Ultimately, the protesters are expressing dissatisfaction with the direction America is heading. That dissatisfaction is shared by many Americans on the right, left, and center. America is headed in the wrong direction. But the answer is not to accelerate the present course of more government and less freedom. Instead we need to free ourselves from over intrusive government and trust the 99 percent to make their own decisions in a free marketplace.

The protesters are right to be frustrated with the state of the economy, the continued unemployment, and the lack of job creation and opportunity. But there’s a better way to solve the problem–the government should do no more harm, get out of the way, and let private, free enterprise work.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Today marks the 1,000th day of Barack Obama’s presidency, and unfortunately for America, those days have been marked by deeper deficits, lost jobs, prolonged unemployment, and bigger government. Meanwhile, many of those charged with leading the federal government have all but abdicated their responsibilities.

The national debt stands at $14.9 trillion–$4.2 trillion of which has been added since Obama took his oath of office. Fourteen million Americans are unemployed–that’s 9.1 percent of the workforce. The unemployment rate has been above nine percent for 840 of the 1000 days, and the average unemployed worker has been without a job for more than 9 months. All told, 2.2 million jobs have been lost under Obama’s watch, despite the White House’s claims that the President’s $787 billion stimulus would create 3.3 million net jobs by 2010.

Unfortunately, instead of leading America toward fiscal sanity and a stronger economy, the President is taking the country in the opposite direction. Last week, his latest proposal to “stimulate” the economy with another $447 billion in spending failed to pass the Senate, but instead of recognizing that more taxing and spending is not what America wants or needs, he’s redoubling his efforts. Today, the President is starting another bus tour to sell a different version of the same plan–this time broken up into pieces of taxing and spending still big enough to choke a horse. It’s the same plan, only in different packaging. Former Congressman Ernest Istook explains the danger:
Even segmented versions of Obama’s $447 billion plan can be used to squeeze in those worst parts. That’s because it’s almost impossible to get both the House and the Senate to enact identical versions of a bill, thus requiring a conference committee to “work out the differences”–which sometimes includes adding distasteful details.

While it’s good news that the Senate rejected the President’s jobs plan, the bad news is that the Senate has utterly failed to help put America back on a strong fiscal path. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) point out that it’s been 900 days since Senate Democrats last adopted a formal budget plan, calling it “a national disgrace.”
As required by law, House Republicans presented a budget in committee, brought it to the floor, and passed it earlier this spring. It was an honest, detailed, concrete plan to put our budget on the path to balance and our economy on the path to prosperity. But Senate Democrats, during this time of national crisis, failed even to present a budget plan — in open defiance of the law and the public they serve.

What we have seen from the Obama Administration is bigger government, more regulations, and massive amounts of government spending in the hopes of stimulating the economy. The trouble is that it hasn’t worked, as the numbers show. Obama promised that his $787 billion stimulus would save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010. It didn’t, and given the jobs that were lost, he came up 7.3 million jobs short of his goal. His health care plan, better known as Obamacare, did not reduce health care costs as promised and is in fact responsible for increasing costs in 2011. On top of that, the law will price many unskilled workers out of full-time employment.

And those are just the big-ticket items. Over the last 1,000 days, America has seen increased regulations, a 9,000-earmark omnibus bill, a government union bailout, a Wall Street reform bill that will do more harm than good, a nuclear arms treaty that is detrimental to missile defense, a refusal to expand domestic energy production, federal overreach into education, an undermining of the rule of law, and a dark cloud hanging over our military’s future due to a failure to ensure adequate defense spending.

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, James Freeman writes of an interview with billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman–Democrat, real-estate mogul, and New York Daily News owner. “Among business executives who supported Barack Obama in 2008, [Zuckerman] says, ‘there is enormously widespread anxiety over the political leadership of the country.’ Mr. Zuckerman reports that among Democrats, ‘The sense is that the policies of this government have failed.’” Given the track record of the Obama Administration over the last 1,000 days, they would be right. Bigger government has not put America on a stronger fiscal path, it hasn’t created jobs, and it hasn’t built a stronger economy.

There is a better way. Heritage’s Saving the American Dream plan charts a course that fixes the debt, cuts spending, and restores prosperity. It redesigns entitlement programs, guarantees assistance to those who need it, and saves the American dream for future generations. If Congress and the President want to move America forward, create new jobs, and spur businesses to grow and invest, then piling on debt, raising taxes, and increasing spending is not the answer–no matter how much Obama would like it to be.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Back in February 2010, when Congress was still debating the Obamacare legislation, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) proclaimed to America that the law “will create 400,000 jobs almost immediately.” But according to a new report by Heritage’s James Sherk, Obamacare will have the opposite effect, pricing many unskilled workers out of full-time employment due to the law’s requirement that employers offer health benefits to full-time employees.

According to Sherk, the minimum cost of employing full-time workers under Obamacare amounts to an average of $27,500, more than what many unskilled employees produce. He explains in his paper, “Obamacare Will Price Less Skilled Workers Out of Full-Time Jobs” why increased costs will lead employers to shift to employing part-time workers:
After paying the new health premiums, the minimum wage, payroll taxes, and unemployment insurance taxes, hiring a full-time worker will cost employers at least $10.03 per hour. Full-time workers with family health plans will cost $13.75 per hour.

Employers who hire workers with productivity below these rates will lose money. Businesses employing less skilled workers will probably respond by dumping their employees onto the federally subsidized health care exchanges and replacing full-time positions with part-time jobs.

Fewer full-time jobs in favor of more part-time positions is not what America needs, particularly as it struggles with a stagnant economy, 9.1 percent unemployment, and 14 million people out of work. But just when the United States needs businesses to expand, grow, and invest, Obamacare is piling on the costs and regulations–making it more difficult for businesses to create new jobs.

Under the law, businesses with more than 50 workers must purchase more expensive government-approved insurance or pay a penalty, thereby reducing the amount of capital they have to invest in expanding and hiring new workers. That requirement also has the effect of incentivizing businesses with fewer than 50 employees to maintain their size to avoid the costs. And then there’s the uncertainty that Obamacare has brought about–businesses don’t know what their future costs will be under the legislation, making it difficult for them to plan for the future.

America might already be seeing the job-killing effects of the President’s signature law. Sherk writes that following Obamacare’s passage, economic growth in America changed course:
Initially, the economy appeared on track for a steady recovery. The economy went from losing 841,000 jobs in January 2009–the recession’s low point–to gaining 229,000 jobs in April 2010…

Within two months of Obamacare’s passing, the recovery stalled… In May 2010, the job situation stopped improving. Job creation dropped to just 48,000 net private sector jobs, and private-sector hiring took a new course. From May 2010 onward, private job growth improved by only 6,500 jobs per month–less than one-tenth the previous rate.

Though correlation doesn’t prove causation, the economy’s slowdown following the passage of Obamacare, when considered alongside complaints from business owners about the law’s effects on new hiring, should cause alarm for anyone who cares about unemployment in America. Heritage’s Nina Owcharenko explains why the law is the wrong prescription for turning the economy around:
Obamacare is perhaps the most damaging of the Administration’s policies that are impeding the country’s recovery. At a time when there should be a focus on cutting spending, reducing regulation, and lowering taxes, Obamacare does the complete opposite. It spends more, imposes costly new mandates and regulations, and raises taxes on individuals and businesses. This is no way to get the economy up and running again.

Unfortunately, Obamacare will make an already bad economic picture worse. Unskilled workers are struggling to find employment, and the President’s health care law will make finding full-time jobs even more difficult. If President Obama truly wants to reduce unemployment and help businesses grow, he should admit that Obamacare was a mistake and work with Congress to repeal it.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites