Freedom Line Blog

Sign of the times from today’s New York Daily News:  “Federal Workers Rage Over President Obama’s Two-Year Wage Freeze.”

Let’s see…  Federal employment has grown 17% since 2007, and federal employees’ total compensation has risen 37% in the past decade (compared to 9% for private sector employees), according to The Wall Street Journal and USA Today.  Further, average federal employee compensation reached $123,000 in 2009, more than twice the $61,000 earned by the average private employee.

So in what moral universe are federal workers justified in reacting to a very modest two-year wage freeze proposal with “rage” and by labeling it a “slap” when they haven’t faced the brutal layoffs, salary reductions and cuts in health coverage their private counterparts must endure?  A majority of Americans surveyed favor federal workforce reductions and salary cuts, so perhaps they should behave less like spoiled Greek, French and English rioters and instead express gratitude to American taxpayers who continue to subsidize their relative good fortune.

So maybe the era of big government really wasn’t over when former President Bill Clinton declared it so.  Jim MacDougald of the Free Enterprise Nation explains that the balanced budget Clinton delivered was the product of a shell game with the Social Security Trust Fund, not a profile in political courage.  From a blog entry discussing the history of Social Security and Medicare:

The federal government recognized that beginning in about 2011 the transfer payment system wouldn’t work. There would be too many recipients of benefits and not enough workers to take money from to pay for it. To avoid the financial catastrophe that loomed ahead, in 1983 the government substantially increased employer and employee contribution requirements to (at least partially) pre-fund for 2011 and thereafter.

Planning ahead for an event that would occur 28 years in the future was a commendable and far-sighted act by our elected officials. “Baby-boomers,” who made up the majority of our workforce, were subsequently “taxed twice,” with matching contributions from employers. One portion of their tax was to pay for those on Social Security who had already retired, the second portion was to pre-fund a part of their own retirement benefits.

Congress took this excess tax revenue and put it in a “trust fund” to pay future benefits. But the trust fund they established was an enormous shell game because the money was treated as general revenues…a huge windfall to the federal government. It enabled President Clinton to announce at a State of the Union address, that the deficit was “exactly zero.” Even today, people are still congratulating Presidents Clinton and H.W. Bush for having balanced budgets and reducing national debt. But Congress had accomplished that feat by taking and spending all of the “excess revenue” that was coming in from payroll taxes for Social Security, and there was a lot of it to spend! From 1983 to 2008, the federal government took $2.5 trillion more than required to pay current Medicare and Social Security recipients, and they “bought Treasuries” with it. In other words, they spent it all.

Now, it makes a lot more sense how the federal government could “balance” the budget so quickly with nary a squeal heard from entrenched interests.  As MacDougald makes clear in the rest of his article, starting next year there are no more games to play.  The 2011 budget for Social Security and Medicare is $1.22 TRILLION – more than all of the federal income taxes paid by all of the workers in America last year.  In order to pay for the payments owed to Baby Boomers (who, as a cohort, begin reaching 65 in 2011), every American worker will have to pay at least $10,000 in new federal taxes every year.

Add this to the cost of ObamaCare and….pass the tryptophan and bring on the food coma.

As the lame duck Congress prepares to take up the issue of what to do about the expiring Bush tax cuts, liberal pundits are busy proving to the American people that no journalism school in America provides economics education. A few points to make with your liberal friends as you argue economics the next time you join them for a non-fat soy latte made from fair trade ingredients:

• Extending the Bush Tax Cuts Won’t “Cost” Anything — Liberals can’t stop carping about the $700 billion “cost” of extending tax cuts for Americans making over $250,000 a year. This is preposterous. The absence of tax increases isn’t a cost to the federal government. If it was, then every dollar kept in private hands instead of transferred to Washington would be a cost. Private businesses don’t account for imaginary revenues as costs, and there’s no reason for government to either. This is just an excuse for not bringing expenditures into line with “revenues” (i.e. money confiscated from you).

• A Shortage of Tax Revenue Isn’t the Root of America’s Fiscal Problems — The class warfare rhetoric at the heart of the tax fight is a red herring for the real issue at hand. Virtually all taxes kill economic activity. Of course, some tax revenue will always be necessary to finance the basic functions of government, but beyond that baseline taxes are actively destructive. Thus the real choice when it comes to upper-level earners’ tax rates isn’t whether they should be soaked or not. It’s whether you think the federal government is doing too little (in which case taxes need to increase and more private economic activity should be killed) or too much (in which case spending needs to decrease).

• Income Inequality is a Meaningless Metric — Proponents of aggressively progressive taxation who are prone to ideological rather than practical justifications of their beliefs have increasingly been leaning on an argument that America suffers from growing income inequality. This is specious for two reasons. First, it presumes that there is an ideal distribution of wealth that exists free of merit. The more free an economy is, however, the more income is a function of how much value one creates in the marketplace. So do we want a nation of C students (socialized mediocrity) or a nation where the highest achievers get A’s and the lowest ones are held back a year (with generous welfare benefits, we should add)? Also, these numbers are absolutely useless from a statistical perspective. Samples of income tiers measure groups, not individuals. So when we say that the rich are richer and the poor are poorer than 20 years ago, we ignore the dynamism of the American economy — and the resulting fact that many individuals who were on the lower rungs of the economic ladder two decades ago have moved up, and many at the top have moved down. This interpretation also ignores the fact that the gap is less important than the actual numbers. If you have $200 and I have $100, are incomes are closer to parity than if you have $1 billion and I have $1 million. But in the latter scenario, we’re both better off individually and society (if it consists of just you and I) is better off as a whole. Now imagine extrapolating that analysis to an entire nation

• Virtually Every Number You See About Poverty in America is a Lie — For one simple reason: government calculations of poverty do NOT factor in benefits conveyed by government. To prove the point using an unrealistic example, a family of four making $40,000 a year but receiving $60,000 in government assistance, would still be captured in government statistics as making $40,000 a year, even though their actual income would be $100,000.

• Unemployment Benefits are NOT a Form of Economic Stimulus — From Nancy Pelosi to Nicolas Kristof, every empty head on the left seems to have the idea that unemployment benefits are a form of economic stimulus rattling around inside it. The idea is that because the poor have the greatest need for liquidity (and will thus spend the cash the quickest) unemployment greases the wheels of commerce. This is a basic Keynesian fallacy: thinking of the economy only in terms of consumption. But if this is true, why wouldn’t the road to recovery be paved with every American emptying out their bank account for a trip to Nordstrom’s? Maximum economic efficiency is achieved by putting money to the use that provides the greatest benefit relative to the cost to the individual. In some cases, this will be consumption. But in others it will be investment or savings. Unemployment benefits can be justified on humanitarian grounds, but not on mechanical economic ones (indeed, excess unemployment benefits drive up unemployment — not a surprise if you remember that you always get more of what you subsidize). Paychecks generally provide the basis for a sounder economy than food stamps.

Our Liberty Update, CFIF’s weekly e-newsletter, this week includes the commentary “A Balanced Budget Amendment Doesn’t Have to Mean Higher Taxes – CFIF’s ‘One More Vote’ Proposal Doesn’t.” In that column, we note that the White House deficit commission’s fundamental flaw is that it takes for granted 2010 federal spending levels as its baseline:

The overriding problem with the commission’s plan is that it accepts the 2010 fiscal year as its spending base, thereby locking in the alarming spending increases of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid regime.  That includes the failed “stimulus” that attempted to spend our way to prosperity, the bailouts, the pet projects and everything else they’ve heaped into our budget.  Since 2008, federal spending has surged from approximately $25,000 per household to $30,000 per household, and jumped during that two-year span from its historical average of 20% of gross domestic product (GDP) to approximately 25% of GDP.  Richard Rahn points out that, “Federal government spending and revenues in 1968 as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) were almost identical to the levels in 2008.”

Unfortunately, it’s actually even worse than that.  The commission also leaves in place ObamaCare, which is already driving up healthcare costs and adding to the deficit (despite promises that it would have the opposite effect).  As James Capretta from National Review Online observes, we shouldn’t be surprised given the commission’s composition:

None of this is all that surprising, given how the commission was formulated.  It’s not really a bipartisan commission at all; it’s an Obama commission.  It was created by the president and stacked with Democratic appointees.  Two-thirds of the 18 members were picked by the president or Democratic congressional leaders. Only six were appointed by Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell.  The president says the public doesn’t want to “re-litigate” the health care war.  He’s wrong.  As last Tuesday’s exit polls make clear, a strong plurality wants exactly that.  The American people know that the ill-advised law was railroaded through Congress and is a colossal mistake.   The fundamental problem here is that it is not possible build a bipartisan budget framework on a foundation that includes a partisan health-care plan with sweeping implications for future spending levels.

Americans cannot be asked to accept the commission’s findings when they take as a given current spending levels and an ObamaCare atrocity that must be replaced.

As a former staff member in the Texas House of Representatives, I have an interest in news that the chamber may be headed for conservative leadership.  This morning, Rep. Ken Paxton (R-McKinney) announced his bid to unseat current Speaker Joe Straus (R-San Antonio).  If successful, Paxton would be the third Republican Speaker in under three years, since Straus ascended to power by beating former Speaker (and my old boss) Tom Craddick (R-Midland) in 2009.

What does an intra-party fight in one of the reddest states in America mean for citizens outside the Lone Star State?  Plenty.

Texas is already the exemplar of low-tax, low-regulation state government.  Moreover, because the legislature only meets for 140 days every two years, Texas government has not had a chance to weigh in legislatively on issues like Arizona’s approach to illegal immigration and Virginia’s response to block implementation of ObamaCare.  With the kick-off of the legislative session next January, a more conservative Republican House majority will be able to make some big statements about the power of the 10^th Amendment in our federal system.

That is, if the House is run by a true conservative.  Stay tuned…

The Wall Street Journal is among the news sources carrying coverage of the preliminary recommendations being produced by President Obama’s much-feted debt reduction panel. According to the Journal’s synopsis:

Among the controversial proposals, the plan in its current form would end or cap a wide range of breaks relied on by the middle class, including the deduction for home-mortgage interest. It would tax capital gains and dividends at the higher rates now levied on wage income. To compensate, one version of the plan would dramatically lower and simplify individual rates, to 9%, 15% and 24%.

For businesses, the plan would significantly lower the corporate tax rate—from a current top rate of 35% to as low as 26%—but also eliminate a number of deductions. It would make permanent the research and development tax credit. Overall, the plan would cut the federal deficit by $3.8 trillion by 2020.

… On Social Security, the plan would gradually raise the retirement age to 68 around 2050 and 69 by 2075. It would combine a cut in benefits with a rise in taxes on wealthier people’s incomes. It would also seek to rein in federal spending on health care beyond what’s called for in the recently passed health-care overhaul. This would be achieved by introducing further changes, including reform of medical-malpractice law, and by seeking to slow the growth of the Medicare program.

The plan would make significant cuts on spending over which Congress has direct control, beyond entitlements such as Medicare. It identifies $410 billion in discretionary spending cuts by 2015. It proposes cutting the federal work force 10%, at a further savings of $13.2 billion by 2015.

Congressional earmarks—provisions inserted into legislation for lawmakers’ pet projects—would be banned permanently, saving $16 billion.

This a surprisingly market-friendly recommendation, much of which — though politically very tough — is admirable. Hopefully, low-tax advocates will train their fire on the unnecessary increases in capital gains and dividend rates, as well as what looks to be a proposed increase on Social Security and Medicare taxes for the wealthy. While we don’t know what deductions are on the chopping block, if the home mortgage example is representative there’s actually a strong free-market case to be made in favor of the eliminations. By giving economic preference to activities like home purchases, these deductions lead to economic inefficiency (they either direct consumers to make choices that wouldn’t be rational without the deduction or subsidize purchases that would have been made regardless).

Elsewhere in the WSJ piece, the authors refer to the fact that the current recommendations rely about 75 percent on spending cuts and 25 percent on tax increases. Good, but not great. A recognition that taxes always hamper economic activity means that tax increases should never be considered instead of spending cuts unless (A) government is only doing the things that are its rightful responsibility and (b) it is doing all those things at maximum efficiency. At some point, the exigencies of politics may require compromising short of that ideal, but I’d like to see a comprehensive examination of spending in the executive branch before tax hikes are even considered.

Let’s consider the cabinet departments. The Departments of Justice, Defense, Treasury, and State are the originals and unquestionably justified under our scheme of federal government. There are others that have probably grown into necessary organs in years since. We’ll need Health and Human Services as long as we have a federal welfare state, Interior as long as we have public lands and a National Park system, Transportation at least for the interstate highway system and air travel and, though its probably in need of some pruning, Homeland Security. Veterans Affairs seems like it could be folded into either Defense or HHS. As for the Departments of Education, Housing & Urban Development, Energy, Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor (apart from its statistical work), I’m at a loss for what useful purpose (or more importantly, results) justifies their existence. I’d be more than willing to scrap each of them, keep the few parts we still need, and re-check the ledger before considering higher taxes for even a single American.

Today, the Labor Department announced that the unemployment rate remained at 9.6% for the third consecutive month.  When President Obama signed his nearly $1 trillion “stimulus” in February 2009, the unemployment rate stood at 8.2%.  In the 20 months since that date, the rate has increased to 9.6% despite White House projections that it would top out at 8% fully one year ago.

Once again, a comparison to the Reagan recovery is profoundly instructive.  In the same 20 month span following the effective date of the Reagan tax cuts in January 1983, unemployment plummeted from 10.4% to 7.3%.  Also instructive is the following headline from today’s Wall Street Journal:  “European Central Bank Parts Ways With U.S. on More Stimulus.” It is a sad state of affairs when even the spendthrift Europeans are providing economic guidance to Obama.

Liberal Keynesians have had almost two years to prove the validity of their economic agenda.  It has failed, their rationalizations have grown stale, and their desperate efforts to resist corrective action will only prolong the nation’s misery.

Laying out his interpretation of California’s electoral decisions on Tuesday, Governor-Elect Jerry Brown is hinting that his third term in office may not be all tax-and-spend.

Brown headed a Democratic ticket Tuesday in blue-leaning California, where voters resisted the “red tide” of Republican victory sweeping the nation. He added that the message from voters was clear: “The voters last night turned down a mere $18-a-year (car) tax by about 60 percent, so I would say that the electorate is in no mood to add to their burdens.”

He said Californians passed Proposition 25, which ends the two-thirds legislative majority for passing a state budget, while also approving Proposition 26, which calls for a two-thirds vote to pass fees.

“The taxpayers gave – and they also took away,” he said. “On the one hand, people said, ‘by majority give us a budget’ and on the other, they said, ‘don’t pick my pocket.’

“What we have to do is win the confidence and trust of the people of California,” he said. That, he added, will require competing groups – Republicans, Democrats, labor unions and business – to “push toward a common interest.”

If California does get a reformed liberal as a budget trimmer, it will be more than the state deserves, and a tentative step in the right direction.

H/T: San Francisco Chronicle

Dwight M. Jaffee, professor of finance and real estate at the University of California, Berkeley, points out in The Wall Street Journal that “Today 90% of the $14 trillion in outstanding residential mortgages is controlled by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Department of Veterans Affairs, or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – with the latter two under government conservatorship.”

Ninety percent?  Wait a minute…  Doesn’t every dizzy big-government leftist from Barack Obama to Paul Krugman tell us that “deregulation” of the housing sector caused our economic difficulties?  The fact is that the housing finance market is one of the most regulated, not least regulated, sectors of the entire economy.  Thanks to Professor Jaffee, we are reminded of the sheer scale of that regulation, as well as the left’s efforts that fed the housing bubble.

Last month, we profiled how federalism is alive and well in economic policy — as exemplified most explicitly in the sharp contrast between California and Texas (a topic we’ve been exploring for nearly a year).

As John Steele Gordon points out in the Contentions blog over at Commentary’s website:

It is often pointed out that the states make great laboratories for political-science experiments. And an experiment has been underway for quite a while testing the liberal model — high taxes, extensive regulation, many government-provided social services, union-friendly laws — against the conservative model — low taxes, limited regulation and social services, right-to-work laws. The results are increasingly in. As Rich Lowry reports in National Review Online, the differences between California and Texas are striking. Between August 2009 and August 2010, the nation created a net of 214,000 jobs. Texas created more than half of them, 119,000. California lost 112,000 jobs in that period.

California has always prided itself on being a leading indicator for the rest of the nation. We’ll see how well they like that designation when it turns out to mean being the canary in the coal mine.

Check out this Fox Business interview with Eric Singer, the founder of Congressional Effect Management, an investment firm that only gets into the stock market when Congress is out of session.  The key to Singer’s strategy is avoiding ‘political risk’ – the damage to wealth creation that Congress causes through taxes and regulation (real or threatened).

Read this CFIF profile of Congressional Effect Management for a more in-depth discussion on Singer’s time-tested, data-driven approach.

Nobody should cheer bad economic news, but neither should anyone deny reality or ignore the clear consequences of toxic public policy.

Some 19 months after Barack Obama signed a nearly $1 trillion “stimulus” bill into law, the Labor Department this morning announced that unemployment remains elevated at 9.6%, and the nation lost 95,000 jobs in September.  This following Obama’s and Joe Biden’s promises of a “recovery summer.” Obama and his apologists may trot out the teleprompters and once again claim that the private sector gain of 64,000 jobs (offset by losses in other sectors to arrive at the negative 95,000 total) shows that “we’re moving in the right direction.”

No, we’re not.  Even that paltry 64,000 is down almost 30,000 from the August private sector gain of 93,000, all at a time when his “stimulus” would supposedly have the economy accelerating, not decelerating.  Further, the Labor Department announcement stated that 15,000 more jobs were lost in July and August than previously estimated, along with a 366,000 downward revision in jobs during the 12 months through March.  The bottom line:  since Obama signed the “stimulus,” unemployment has steadily risen from 8.2% to 9.6%.

By way of comparison, in the 19 months following the arrival of Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts in January 1983, unemployment plummeted from 10.4% to 7.3%.  The facts speak for themselves.

Arthur Laffer brought us the famed Laffer Curve, which plotted how higher tax rates can paradoxically reduce incoming revenues by inhibiting economic growth.

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Laffer adds to his legacy by showing how state income taxes lead to lower economic growth, personal income and population growth.  The impetus for Laffer’s analysis is ballot Initiative 1098 in the state of Washington, which would impose a new 5% income tax on individuals earning over $200,000 or couples over $400,000 per year.  An additional 4% would be heaped upon individuals earning over $500,000 or couples earning over $1 million.  Laffer crunches the real-world economic numbers, which clearly demonstrate that this is a destructive idea.  He shows that the nine states without a personal income tax enjoy 26.5% higher economic growth, 13.1% higher personal income growth and 9.4% higher population growth than the nine staes with the highest personal income tax rates. The highest-tax states also suffer 22% lower tax revenue growth and underperform in standard of living.

As Laffer neatly summarizes, “Each and every state that introduced an income tax saw its share of total U.S. output decline.”  He can’t stop states from descending into economic self-destruction, but he provides a great service by providing this warning beacon.

How’s this for drive-by media bias?  Today’s Washington Post runs the deceptive headline “Report Gives Stimulus Package High Marks.” Hmmm.  That sounds like a counterintuitive “Man Bites Dog” story worth reading.  So who issued the report?  The Post’s first paragraph admits that it comes from White House itself.  Worse, it was overseen by that respected rock of good judgment and common sense, Vice President Joe Biden.

Even with that baked-in bias, the White House report doesn’t seem to focus on how the $814 billion “stimulus” supposedly succeeded.  Rather, it emphasizes how the effort has already distributed 70% of the allocated funds, and managed to avoid “the fraud charges that plague more routine government spending programs.”  That’s it?  That’s the best that even Joe Biden can claim?  That should actually come as discouraging news, not encouraging news, to “stimulus” proponents.  After all, if 70% of its funds have already been spent, but we still haven’t experienced its promised results, what remains other than $814 billion added to our nation’s debt?  The White House promised that unemployment would top out twelve months ago at 8% if the bill passed, but we remain stuck at 9.6%.  Instead of igniting our economic furnace, it has merely clouded growth and undermined the business and hiring climate.

The White House and its apologists speculatively claim that the “stimulus” averted another great depression, but today’s Wall Street Journal carries an analysis by former Senator Phil Gramm devastating that assertion.  Gramm compares U.S. growth and employment figures to other developed countries that didn’t engage in the irresponsible “stimulus” profligacy we did, and shows that we lag far behind.  As the Post story notes, Obama’s “stimulus” was “the largest effort in U.S. history to counteract the effects of a recession.”  All it has done is prove once again that government doesn’t create jobs or growth, but economic uncertainty and debt.

Earlier this month, the Center for Individual Freedom launched its “One More Vote” campaign in support of a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to balance the federal budget without raising taxes.

This week, the campaign launched its first 30-second ad, which can be viewed below.

CFIF’s goal is to get this ad in front of as many concerned Americans as possible, but we need your help.  Please consider a contribution to CFIF’s “One More Vote” initiative today to help us publicize this urgent campaign to force the politicians in Washington to stop the spending. 

To make a donation, click here.

According to a report entitled “The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms” just produced by Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain for the Small Business Administration, the annual cost of federal regulations alone has reached $1.75 trillion.  That excludes the annual cost of taxes.  And that was as of 2008.

Combined, taxes and regulatory costs consumed a staggering 35% of America’s income in 2008, or $37,962 per household .  Alarmingly, that was the number before such new fiascoes as ObamaCare, “stimuli” and bailouts increased the burden.  Small businesses create most new jobs in America, but the authors highlight that regulatory costs hit them disproportionately hard relative to larger businesses (due primarily to economies of scale in dealing with regulatory compliance costs).  The authors found that businesses with fewer than 20 employees incur regulatory costs 42% greater than firms of between 20 and 499 employees, and 36% greater than firms with over 500 employees.  Per employee, small businesses face $10,585 in compliance costs versus $7,454 per employee for medium-sized firms, and $7,755 for larger firms.

As government gets bigger and bigger, the regulatory compliance costs only get more and more oppressive.  We needn’t search far to understand why the economy isn’t recovering and businesses aren’t hiring.

In a recent interview with CFIF, Quin Hillyer, senior editorial writer at the Washington Times and senior editor of The American Spectator, discusses the battle looming over the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and more.

Listen to the interview here.

Conservative reaction to the House Republicans’ “Pledge to America” varies.  Whatever one’s views toward the plan, however, it did omit an item high on conservatives’ agenda:  a proposed Constitutional balanced budget amendment.  Enter CFIF’s “One More Vote,” which refers to the fact that Congress fell just one vote short in the 1990s of passing a balanced budget amendment and sending it to the states for ratification.  Our “One More Vote” initiative, which readers are urged to sign, would not only require a balanced budget, but prevent that from becoming a convenient excuse to raise taxes by requiring a 60% supermajority to create or increase taxes, or to raise the nation’s debt ceiling.

Party change won’t be enough this time around.  With “One More Vote,” we can collectively create something more lasting for America’s future generations.

In his weekly Wonder Land column entitled “It’s the Spending, Stupid,” The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger describes how “concern” over out-of-control federal spending has reached the boiling point:

They, the voters, are not ‘concerned’ about Uncle Sam’s spending floating toward the moon.  They are enraged, furious, crazed and desperate.”

Heninger rightfully points out that it won’t be enough for voters to simply return Republicans to House and Senate majorities this November.  Rather, something more lasting, tangible, and assuring is needed:

If voters give control of the House to the GOP, the party desperately needs to establish credibility on spending.  Absent that, little else is possible.  Independent voters now know that the national Democratic Party, hopelessly joined to the public-sector unions, will never stabilize public outlays.  In a sense, the GOP’s impending victory is meaningless, a win by default.  If the Republican rookies entering Congress next year don’t do something identifiably real to stop the federal spending balloon, voters two years from now will start throwing the GOP under the bus.”

Enter CFIF’s new “One More Vote” citizen activist campaign.  “One More Vote” refers to the fact that Congress fell just one vote short in the 1990s of passing a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, and sending it to the states for ratification.  Echoing Daniel Henninger’s commentary this week, the “One More Vote” homepage states that, “Currently, there are several worthy ideas proposed in Congress.  But we need more than ideas.  We need a solution.”  Accordingly, “One More Vote” proposes a Constitutional amendment requiring (1) a federal balanced budget annually, (2) a 60% majority of both houses of Congress to raise the debt ceiling, and (3) a 60% vote of both houses of Congress to increase or create new taxes.

It’s precisely the type of real, lasting and tangible change that enraged American voters described by Henninger demand.  Click on “One More Vote” now, and join the movement.  This time, let’s make sure the change is real.

Remember how two years ago, Barack Obama was the most exciting, intellectually inventive president since John F. Kennedy? Maybe it’s time for 44 to compare his tax policies to 35: