One ironclad rule of government programs is “if you subsidize something, you will get more of it.” Thus, paying poor, unmarried women to have children increases the number of children in single-parent families, and paying farmers to grow corn increases the amount of corn cultivated.
Although President Barack Obama correctly understood that his party had taken a "shellacking" in the November elections, he seems not to have drawn the obvious lesson from that defeat: Americans are unhappy with his policies. Even now, reports the Washington Examiner, he "is expected to make more frequent use of executive orders, vetoes, signing statements and policy initiatives that originate within the federal agencies to maneuver around congressional Republicans who are threatening to derail initiatives he has already put in place, including health care reforms, and to launch serial investigations into his administration's spending."
“You might as well know right now … that the Tea Party, no matter how successful it is at the polls in November, will certainly betray the party of liberty,” wrote Lew Rockwell, proprietor of LewRockwell.com, on September 22.
"I won't take any PAC money from banks that took TARP funds, nor would I take it from the top executive," Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, told Roll Call in February 2009.
In uncertain economic times, Americans are looking for signs of improvement. The U.S. government, by contrast, is looking for improvement of signs -- street signs, that is.
Another day, another government program mired in the traditional triumvirate of waste, fraud, and abuse. Today's example: the Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program, funded with $5 billion in money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (a.k.a. the stimulus law).
The New York Times is worried: Tea Party activists and the candidates they support are openly criticizing that most sacred of quasi-governmental institutions, the Federal Reserve. Worse still, some of these candidates might actually win and join forces with Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), author of End the Fed, who is poised to head the House Financial Services Committee, which oversees the Fed, if Republicans regain control of the House of Representatives in November.
According to the Associated Press, Americans United for Life, a pro-life organization, is running ad campaigns against 12 Democrats, nearly all incumbents, who voted for -- or support -- ObamaCare. AUL argues that these candidates should be defeated on the grounds that the healthcare law fails to prevent taxpayer funds from being spent on abortions. The group points out, for example, that while the House of Representatives had passed an amendment to the bill banning federal funding of abortion under ObamaCare, the amendment was not in the final version, yet these allegedly pro-life Democrats voted in favor of the bill anyway.
President Barack Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, resigned from his post on October 1 amid rampant speculation that he would run for Mayor of Chicago in the wake of incumbent Mayor Richard M. Daley's announcement that he will not stand for reelection next year.
"These days one of America's two great political parties routinely makes nonsensical promises," writes Paul Krugman in his Sept. 23 New York Times column. To which party is Krugman referring: the one promising that a gigantic federal bureaucracy and a massive number of new mandates on health insurance companies will improve the quality and reduce the cost of healthcare, or the one promising to rein in government spending even though the last President and Congress from its party made Lyndon Johnson look like Ebenezer Scrooge?