The Mohair subsidy. The AmTrak subsidy. The Ready to Learn TV Program subsidy. What all of these federal subsidies (and scores more) have in common is that they are on the specific list of federal programs that Republicans are proposing to eliminate to cut the debt and preserve America’s fiscal integrity.

Hey, with the U. S. national debt increasing by $4.1 billion each day, we are faced with national bankruptcy—which has aroused the Republicans from their lethargy. They will agree to raise the debt ceiling if the politicians will agree to restrain their spending appetite by making specific cuts.

What specific suggestions for cuts has President Obama made? Almost none. It doesn’t count to talk about future savings from possible cuts in national defense, or alleged savings from Obamacare. It’s all in the future, and we don’t know if any of it will happen.

For the president to make no suggested cuts in our bloated federal budget is astonishing. Let’s take the more than $100,000,000 annual subsidy to Amtrak as one example. Amtrak is expensive and inefficient, which is no surprise. The first transcontinental railroads—the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific—were built in the 1860s and they ran about $60 million (in 1869 dollars) in debt in building costs, and both went bankrupt (the Union Pacific several times) before the end of the 1800s. By contrast, the Great Northern Railroad, which went from St. Paul to Seattle was built with no federal subsidies and never went bankrupt. The subsidies to the Union Pacific and Central Pacific made them dependent on the government, and helped lead to their downfall. Thus, if the federal subsidies to transcontinental railroads failed when first tried in the 1800s, why should we be surprised that AmTrak loses money every year now. And what does this tell us about the huge subsidies President Obama has planned for high-speed rail?

Why is the president failing to join the current debate? Why is he offering almost no specific cuts?

(more…)

No president of the 20th century had a more positive and enduring influence than Ronald Reagan, who was born 99 years ago today. Other presidents, from Wilson to FDR, exceeded Reagan in their impact, but much of it was negative. Sure, they won wars, but they almost destroyed the American economy as well.

Reagan, by contrast, won the Cold War and also revived the American economy from decades of abuse. He was successful both at home and abroad.

Since President Reagan left the White House in 1989, the U. S. has stumbled, so it is wise to ponder why Reagan did so well. Was it natural intelligence or careful political training? Not really—and that fact both galls and baffles his critics. Reagan was a C student at lowly Eureka College and from there he went into small-town broadcasting, and then to Hollywood. He didn’t try to be governor of California until he was 55 years old.

Reagan had three parts to his genius. First, he was a visionary; he believed that people wanted freedom and would do well when more of it was given to them. Whether he was undermining the Soviets, challenging an unlawful union, or deregulating oil production he tried to move in a consistent direction of greater freedom and less government. According to Dinesh D’Souza, “Reagan’s greatness derives in large part from the fact that he was a visionary—a conceptualizer who was able to see the world differently from the way it was.” Reagan knew where he wanted to go: Jimmy Carter, by contrast, had multiple plans to create energy, to generate revenue, and to cut inflation. Often they were contradictory; all of them failed. Reagan was more consistent because he had vision: He knew where he wanted to go and how he wanted to get there.

(more…)