U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on Friday announced he would be stepping down after seven years…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Arne Duncan Takes His Leave

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on Friday announced he would be stepping down after seven years of service to the Obama administration. In a letter to department employees, Duncan said he wished to return to Chicago to be with his family. Duncan's wife and two children moved back to their hometown earlier this year. He plans to leave by the end of the year.

President Obama has already selected John B. King, Jr., the current deputy secretary of education, to replace Duncan.

Duncan's announcement is a bit out of the blue. From the Washington Post:

Even after Duncan’s family relocated to Chicago at the end of the summer, and their home in Arlington was put up for sale, Duncan insisted that he would stay until the end of the Obama administration.

In an interview with…[more]

October 02, 2015 • 12:19 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Liberal Attacks Misfire on Ryan Budget Plan Print
By Ashton Ellis
Friday, April 08 2011
So far, no liberal commentator inside or outside government has seriously addressed the central inescapable issue of federal spending: It is unsustainable at current levels.

The Left’s denunciation of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) 2012 “Path to Prosperity” budget proposal was swift, but curious.

So far, no liberal commentator inside or outside government has seriously addressed the central inescapable issue of federal spending:  It is unsustainable at current levels.  Add ObamaCare’s implementation to the ledger, and government spending will incur an additional $9.4 trillion increase in the federal deficit within a decade.  (As of today, it’s $14 trillion.)  So says President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal.

In 2009, at the close of his first 100 days as president, Barack Obama engaged in a rare show of straight talk.  Asked at a town hall in Arnold, MO, which federal entitlements needed cutting, Obama said:

“The big problem we have with entitlements is not Social Security, it’s Medicare.  Medicare and Medicaid, the two health programs that the federal government helps support, those are the things that are really breaking the bank.”

You don’t say.  Yet the president has said almost nothing about reining in entitlement spending since that unscripted flash of honesty two years ago. 

Rep. Ryan acknowledges that Medicare and Medicaid are the programs most in need of fundamental change if they are to be saved.  That’s why Ryan is pushing a plan to transform Medicare into a voucher program and Medicaid into block grants.  Unlike the president, the House Budget Committee Chairman is showing authentic leadership. 

Obama now has other priorities.  Instead of offering any kind of alternative, the president sends White House press secretary Jay Carney to say that Ryan’s sensible plan “fails” because it doesn’t “reflect American values of fairness and shared sacrifice.” 

Where are those values listed?  The Declaration of Independence mentions that governments are created among people to protect an individual’s rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” 

The Constitution empowers the government to legislate for the “general welfare.” 

But nowhere in either document can one find a reference to an American creed of fairness that dresses up government insolvency and higher taxes as examples of shared sacrifice. 

For the Founders, sacrifice was an action taken in the hope of a better tomorrow.  People pledged their lives and sacred honor – with many losing their homes and families in the process – to build a democratic republic free of despotism. 

In the Age of Obama, “shared sacrifice” isn’t a temporary measure.  It is a permanent reduction in the economic opportunity of all Americans. 

The president isn’t alone in his scarcity-for-all program.  Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), ranking minority member on the House Budget Committee, calls Ryan’s plan “the same old ideological agenda that extends tax breaks to millionaires and big oil companies while cutting our kids’ education and health security for seniors.” 

Only an economic vision obsessed with dividing up a shrinking pie could argue that Americans face a (false) choice between illiterate children and stricken seniors on one hand, and tax breaks for fat cats on the other.

It is inevitable that any serious, responsible attempt to rein in spending like Paul Ryan’s will take heat from hotheaded liberals – from Van Hollen to Pelosi to Schumer – warning of the apocalypse.  It is equally certain that the Left will try to convince Americans that emotion should trump reason when it comes to entitlement programs, exposing the same old tired scare-tactic refrain so beloved by liberals, so destructive to governance. 

The truth is that a government focused on enabling private sector growth in production is a government able to offer an all-of-the-above approach to social policy.  After all, growth in wealth and employment increase economic activity, which in turn increases the tax revenues that liberals love to spend.

That’s why Ryan’s plan includes a reduction in income tax rates to 25 percent.  Allowing all Americans to keep a greater amount of their paychecks will be the kind of pro-growth signal the market has been waiting to see from government. 

If Democrats are at all concerned about maintaining some semblance of their pet projects, they should be eager to learn the lesson taught by former Rep. Jack Kemp (R-NY): Give Americans an incentive to produce, and they will work the country back into prosperity. 

The notion that a rising tide lifts all boats is something Kemp’s former speechwriter Paul Ryan would be happy to share, if only liberals would listen.  They won’t.

The 2012 budget fight will only get nastier.  Good thing fiscal conservatives can count on Paul Ryan’s sensible arguments to beat back the hysterics. 

Question of the Week   
How many times in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives has a Speaker been voted out in the middle of his term of office?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
"Each time there's a shooting like the one that took place in Oregon on Thursday, a choir of politicians and pundits rises up to pretend they have known all along how to stop such incidents from happening. If only people had listened to them in advance! What they wanted to tell everyone all along was that one or another gun control proposal would have solved the problem. They are not only wrong, but…[more]
—The Editors, Washington Examiner
— The Editors, Washington Examiner
Liberty Poll   

Which one of the following is the greatest threat to the U.S. and its interests?