Contrary to what some may believe, the Tea Party, aka main-stream America, did not evaporate after their big victory in the 2010 mid-term elections. This year, members of Tea Party groups across the nation are focusing on other activities that are necessary to grass roots organizations: training future activists, working to support the election of more conservatives to Congress and state legislatures, and assisting in teaching young Americans about their Constitution and why they need to defend it.

In addition, Tea Party Patriots has its own response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address:

(more…)

When it was announced that Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniel’s would give the response to the State of the Union address, hopes were high that he might take it to Obama–that he might meet the rhetoric of class warfare with an exposition of free markets, personal responsibility, smaller government, etc. But instead, what we heard last night from Daniels was more class warfare aimed at the rich.

For example, after saying some good things, even some great things, about the debt President Obama’s reckless spending has put us in—“an unprecedented explosion of spending has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt”—Daniels went after the wealthy in this county in much the same way we’d expect Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid to do.

Consider the way he spoke of reviving Medicare and social security:

We must unite to save the safety net. Medicare and social security have served us well [and] we can preserve them unchanged and untouched for those in or near retirement, but we must fashion a new safety net so future Americans are protected too.

Decades ago we could afford to send millionaires pension checks and pay medical bills for even the wealthiest among us, now we can’t. So the dollars we have should be devoted to those who need them most.

Do you see that? According to Daniels, people who are wealthy shouldn’t receive social security “pension” checks or Medicare benefits. And what’s the difference between what Daniels is saying and what Obama says when he tells the wealthy to “pay their fair share”? It’s like Daniels took a page straight out of Class Warfare 101.

And what’s worse, Daniels is completely overlooking the fact that “the wealthy” receive social security checks because they paid into social security: it’s not like they’re receiving checks for something they didn’t earn. So in a real sense, Daniels is saying that the money the wealthy paid into social security should go to others instead. It’s like a whole new entitlement.

(more…)

President Obama has decided to make “income inequality” — one of Occupy Wall Street’s central themes — the focus of both his State of the Union address and 2012 presidential election campaign, according to CNN.

In his last State of the Union speech before the 2012 election, President Barack Obama will pitch a series of proposals and will address the topics of economic inequality and a government that should ensure “a fair shake for all.”

And…

Given the treacherous state of the economy, the president’s campaign aides are attempting to make the theme of the upcoming election a choice about the role of government and the future of the middle class — not a referendum on the president’s handling of the economy.

They say this speech and its underlying theme — income inequality — go a long way to shaping that message.

The Obama Campaign has posted a video this morning that hits on this theme of “Income Equality”, which means the President is piggybacking the central theme of his re-election campaign on the framing that Occupy Wall Street created. That is the major reason to keep a close, critical eye on the #Occupy movement.

(more…)

President Barack Obama will deliver his fourth State of the Union address on Tuesday, January 24th–the very day that marks the 1,000th day since the Democrat-controlled United States Senate last bothered to pass a budget.

On Monday, the Ranking Republican of the Senate Budget Committee Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and the Chairman of the House Budget Committee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) released a joint statement blasting Democrats for their budgetary inaction and contrasting it with Republican efforts:

Senate Democrats abandoned their official duty to prioritize Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars and tackle our nation’s most pressing economic challenges—dealing a painful blow to fiscal progress that may be felt for some time.  This contrasts sharply with the record of the House Republicans. Last spring, the new House Majority publicly produced a budget plan before the nation, brought it forward in committee, and passed it on the floor. The budget’s principled solutions honestly confront our nation’s most difficult challenges, putting the budget on a path to balance and the country on a path to prosperity.

To mark the inauspicious 1,000-day anniversary, the Heritage Foundation released a series of budget facts and urged the Senate to meet its Constitution requirements for fiscal stewardship:

(more…)

President Obama, in his State of the Union address Tuesday night, was right to focus on the challenges the United States faces as domestic companies try to compete with low-cost global competitors. But he was wrong to suggest that the United States can “win the future” by getting Washington more involved in innovation and education.

As the president conceded elsewhere, Washington is, in fact, a big part of the problem—with high corporate tax rates and excessive regulation.

Just a week earlier in a Wall Street Journal article, the president elaborated on this, rhetorically declaring a truce with business and laying out the administration’s strategy for moving “toward a 21st-century regulatory system.”

Mr. Obama said this new system would need to strike a balance between the innovativeness, job-creating capacity and robust growth produced by free markets and the responsibility of government to impose “common-sense rules” to protect the public. He called for a “government-wide review of . . . rules already on the books,” and said that “careful consideration” would be given to the costs and benefits of all pending regulations. But as Yogi Berra once said, “This is like deja vu all over again.”

Presidents Clinton and Reagan both signed executive orders requiring that proposed federal regulations be implemented only if their economic benefits exceeded the costs of complying with them. Reagan even established a branch within the Office of Management and Budget—the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)—to make sure executive branch agencies complied. The executive orders by and large were ineffective.

In fact, the federal government has been expanding its control of the private economy since the 1890s, on the theory that vulnerable people must be protected from cradle to grave by an omniscient bureaucracy that knows what’s best for them. The growth in regulation typically has been justified by analyses, prepared by the regulatory bureaus themselves, which grossly overstate regulation’s benefits and understate its costs.

(more…)

Sad to say, what I wrote last year at this time is hardly less apt today:  “The State of the Union Address is ordinarily a bore. It generally consists of a laundry list of proposals, and the list nearly always seems interminable. If Barack Obama has moxie, however, tonight could be different. His State of the Union Address could be a real game changer.”

“Here,” I then wrote, “is how he could do it – if he was really intent on saving his Presidency and on turning a disgraceful performance in that office into something worthy of eulogy. This evening, after the usual formalities, he could say:

My fellow Americans, let me begin by stating the obvious. The state of our union is not good. We seem to be – we may be – coming out of a recession. But, if so, the recovery is not only jobless; it is accompanied by an increase in employment.

This is contrary to my expectation. When I became President, my economic advisers told me that the rate of unemployment would be considerably lower now than it is. They were mistaken, and I erred in taking their advice. The fault is mine. I may not have gotten us into a severe recession, but I advanced proposals and I pursued policies which have prolonged and deepened it. I am at fault.

(more…)

Republicans ought politely to decline President Barack Obama’s invitation to a summit on health care reform. It’s not just a potential “trap,” as House Minority Leader John Boehner suspects, aimed at fast-forwarding a modified health care reform bill through Congress under a smokescreen of superficial “bipartisanship.” It’s also a violation of the spirit of our Constitution’s separation of powers.

The President has no legislative authority. He can propose laws—indeed, we expect him to do so—that are then introduced by legislators in Congress. He can sign a bill or veto it once it has been passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. He can mediate disputes among legislators to broker agreements. But the President cannot intervene directly in the legislative process until it is over.

The discussion that President Obama has proposed with Republicans for February 25th was, no doubt, inspired by his success at a question-and-answer session with the GOP last month. However, the new event is beginning to assume the trappings of a formal legislative session. Republicans will be asked to propose changes to the Senate version of the health care bill, and the President will offer compromises.

(more…)

One of the most talked about lines from the State of the Union came not from Obama but from a comment the MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews made after the President’s address: “He is post-racial by all appearances,” Matthews observed. “You know, I forgot he was black tonight for an hour. You know, he’s gone a long way to become a leader of this country and passed so much history in just a year or two.”

I am prepared to take this comment seriously. No doubt Matthews meant it as a compliment. A cheerleader for the President, Matthews once famously remarked that he “felt this thrill going up my leg” following another Obama speech. But the observation of a “post-racial” President spells trouble for Obama. For one, judging by Matthews’s backtracking, the comment has inadvertently exposed the subject of Obama’s race to be a continuing taboo for any meaningful discussion. Why is it taboo? Because race remains the key issue through which one can unlock and understand the power that brought Obama to office, and Obama’s defenders do not want to give that key away. Harry Reid’s recently reported comments about Obama being a “light-skinned Negro” raised hackles for similar reasons.

(more…)

The State of the Union Address that Barack Obama delivered last night bore little, if any, resemblance to the speech that, in my opinion, he should have delivered. The actual speech was, in fact, all too typical of the genre. It ran for an hour or more, and it consisted of an interminable laundry list of putative accomplishments and proposals. When, near the end, the President said, “I don’t quit,” I found myself thinking, “No, surely! But I very much wish you would.” In the course of an hour, I felt as if I had spent three weeks listening to the man. I very much doubt that I was alone.

Seven things stood out.

First, at no point did Barack Obama acknowledge that the promises that he made in campaigning for the so-called stimulus bill have gone unredeemed and that unemployment has continued to grow in a fashion that, he told us, it would not.

(more…)

The State of the Union Address is ordinarily a bore. It generally consists of a laundry list of proposals, and the list nearly always seems interminable. If Barack Obama has moxie, however, tonight could be different. His State of the Union Address could be a real game changer.

Here is how he could do it – if he was really intent on saving his Presidency and on turning a disgraceful performance in that office into something worthy of eulogy. This evening, after the usual formalities, he could say.

My fellow Americans, let me begin by stating the obvious. The state of our union is not good. We seem to be – we may be – coming out of a recession. But, if so, the recovery is not only jobless; it is accompanied by an increase in unemployment.

(more…)

Tonight, President Obama delivers his first State of the Union Address. Quaint that we once set aside specific time to ensure the President communicated with the public.

It is evening. Dinner is over, and I can see Bill Clinton sitting back at a table. In my fantasy, he has a mischievous smile on his face and a cigar in his right hand; his left hand lies on the knee of a scantily-clad lass less than half his age; and he is waiting in vain for the President to call.

Republicans, when on the spot, are apt to ask themselves, “What would Reagan do?” Democrats would be well advised, when in similar straits, to ponder what Bill Clinton would do. For whatever one might think of him — and in the last couple of years Democrats have been as likely to badmouth the man as Republicans — Slick Willie is a survivor who knows how to stage a comeback when nearly everyone thinks him not only down but permanently out. It was with such a figure in mind that H. L. Mencken wrote these immortal words: “The smarter the politician, the more things he believes and the less he believes any of them.”

I have no doubt what advice Clinton would give Barack Obama if the latter were to make that call. He would tell him to jettison Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod; to hire a David Gergen, and a Dick Morris; to leave Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their minions twisting in the wind; and to announce in his State of the Union Address that the era of big government is once again at an end.

(more…)