*Got questions about RomneyCare and ObamaCare? Visit our newly updated page on RomneyCare – The Truth about Massachusetts Health Care to find articles like this and other questions you may be wondering.
It is often asserted that RomneyCare is the same thing as ObamaCare, but this is simply not true. It is important to note that Massachusetts, the state where Romneycare was founded, opposed Obamacare. In fact, Massachusetts opposed Obamacare so much that they elected Senator Scott Brown (R) in 2010 to be the deciding vote against Obamacare after Senator Ted Kennedy’s death. Why would the state where Romneycare was founded be opposed to Obamacare if the two laws were really the same? The answer is, of course, that they are not the same. While there are similarities between the two laws, there are also key differences. Below is a table of differences between the Romney plan and the Obama plan.
Overall Size and Scope
-Whole bill was 70 pages
-Romney vetoed significant sections of the bill including the employer penalty for not providing health insurance
-Romney favored an “opt out” provision from the mandate
-Romney favored no mandated benefits for health care coverage, catastrophic only
-No federal gov. insurance option
-Intended as a market driven solution to healthcare
-Whole bill was 2,074 pages
-Very broad regulation of the insurance industry including an employer penalty for not providing health insurance and no “opt out” provision
-Establishes a 15 member board of unelected bureaucrats with great control over health care benefits and risks rationing health care
-Leaves open the option of creating single-payer gov. insurance in the future
-Intended as a step toward gov. run insurance
-No new taxes!
-Romney balanced the state’s budget first, then passed healthcare law
-No cuts to Medicare benefits
-Modest cost to state (only added 1% to state budget)
-Increased taxes by $500 billion and taxes people who don’t buy insurance
-Despite massive federal gov. debt, Obama still passed Obamacare
-Cuts Medicare by $500 billion
-Overall costs unknown!
-Very strong bipartisan support
-Strong special interest support
-Very popular among the public in Massachusetts
-Strong consensus of approval was built in the state to support the law
-Consensus was built to support an individual mandate
-Absolutely no bipartisan support
-Very controversial and divided special interest groups
-Unpopular in nation overall
-No consensus was built to support a mandate
Does Constitution Define it as a “Tax” or “Penalty/Fee”?
-Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts ruled state mandates are “penalties” because states have different authority and powers than the fed. gov.
-Mass. constitution never considered this a tax
-Supreme Court ruled that federal gov. only has the authority to enact this law by its ability “tax,” and does not meet the required standards to be considered a “penalty.”
-This tax breaks Obama’s promise that he would not raise taxes on the middle class
-A state solution to a state problem
-Through collaboration and discussion, Massachusetts created a consensus among stake holders to support the new law
-Federal gov. “one-size-fits-all” plan
-Doesn’t take into account that each state is unique in important ways such as:
1)Vastly different debt levels between states (some states can’t afford new spending on health care)
2)Some states have three times the percentage of uninsured citizens (Much greater costs will be imposed on states with a larger percentage of uninusured citizens)
3)Conservative states will reject implementation of federal gov. plan.
As the above table illustrates, the plan Romney proposed was a much more conservative, business friendly law than what the Democrats passed under President Obama.
The Boston Globe editorial board recently published an article defending RomneyCare on conservative grounds. The editorial board states “the role Romney played on the state level was skillful, creative, and business friendly. Romney was a governor sensitive to business concerns and worried about the state’s business climate.”
A crucial difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare is that the two healthcare plans, while similar in some ways, present vast differences in the essential origins and motives that separate Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. One author summarized it this way:
We know what Romney’s goal was when he passed his health care plan. His goal was to involve the private sector of Massachusetts in insuring a small percentage of the Massachusetts’ residents [who didn't have health insurance and who were receiving free health care from the government.]
Obama’s goal prior to signing Obamacare into law was much, much bigger.
In 2003, he said, ”I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan.”
The fact is, Obamacare was originally going to be single payer. It was going to be European — as close to it as Congress would allow. But that was curbed. What they got, instead — what we got, instead — was the first step. Obamacare. The first step toward single-payer, universal healthcare coverage.
And that is the crucial difference. Romney never said, never touted, never promised that “we may not get [single-payer] immediately” or even a little later than immediately. Romneycare is not Obamacare because Obamacare is just getting started. One was an end in and of itself. The other is (still) a means to an end.
In 2006 when RomneyCare was passed, most conservatives praised Romney’s plan. The Bush administration sent a letter praising the passage of the new law. An often overlooked fact is that without the support of the Bush administration, Romney’s health care law never would have become a reality.
One of Romney’s main goals in passing healthcare legislation was to counter many much more liberal attempts within Massachusetts to take over the healthcare system. The Boston Globe newspaper discusses in detail one plan that Romney feared would become law if action was not taken. That plan was the imposition of a payroll tax of up to $1,700 per employee on all businesses that did not offer health insurance to their employees. It was a serious threat. The plan had been voted on in the year 2000 and the law barely failed by 3%. In 2006 the employer mandate coupled with a heavy payroll tax was to be voted on again.
In regard to ObamaCare, Romney firmly believes that each state should have the right to craft its own health care program. Health care has traditionally been a state issue, not a federal issue, and Romney wants to keep it that way. In his book, No Apology, Romney states:
“My own preference is to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model if they choose, or they could develop plans of their own. These plans, tested in the state ‘laboratories of democracy,’ could be evaluated, compared, improved upon, and adopted by others.”
In keeping with the belief that states should be able to craft their own programs, Romney has said that on his first day as president, he would issue a waiver to all 50 states allowing them to opt out of ObamaCare. This waiver would allow states to postpone the implementation of ObamaCare while Romney works with congress to formally repeal the bill.
In conclusion, a recent article in The New Yorker magazine states that “Romney had accomplished a longstanding Democratic goal – universal health insurance – by combining three conservative policies.” In other words, Romney had beaten Democrats at their own goal of providing universal health insurance – but Romney’s novel approach accomplished this goal not with a government takeover, but with conservative principles. The success of Romney’s healthcare law led many Democrats to consider adopting a similar approach to achieving universal health insurance. However, the end result from the Democrats under President Obama was a plan with a much larger government, much greater spending, increased taxes, and less power to the states and individuals to determine their own health care goals.
Since this is a pro-Romney site it would be pointless to run a presidential preference tournament. So we are going to do the next best thing – pick the bottom half of the ticket. Click the image above to see the whole bracket. If you don’t like my seeding assignments… well… it was all pretty much arbitrary anyways.
The first round polls are below. Voting for this round will go until Sunday.
Governor Mitt Romney will be dropping by to chat with the ladies of The View on February 1, 2011 – which coincides with the paperback release of his book No Apology – that very same day. The View has also scheduled appearances with Tim Pawlenty and Scott Brown:
“The View” is lining up big-name Republicans as guests.
Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty will stop by the ABC chatfest on Tuesday.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will drop in Feb. 1 — his second visit to the show.
Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts will be a guest Feb. 21.
Brown and Pawlenty will be making their first visits to the show[...]
Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee all made post-2010 election stops on The View, as well.
Here’s a look at Gov Romney’s excellent guest appearance on The View back on March 2, 2010. It was the first day of the release of his engrossing and thought-provoking new book No Apology: The Case for American Greatness:
Looking forward to seeing and hearing Gov Romney in a few weeks!
A lot is said about the Tea Party by the News media… mostly that they are a far right fringe group who have an ‘our way or the highway’ attitude. To some extent, that attitude may be true. However, what IS NOT clear is, the ‘OUR way’.
Scott Brown is a perfect example of the Tea Party’s wide open tent and appeal. Brown came from nowhere to win Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts. A moderate Republican who was urged as a Republican state legislator to run for Kennedy’s seat by former Governor and personal friend, Mitt Romney (who, by the way, STRONGLY supported him through the entire election process).
Brown’s candidacy was the prelude to what was to become one of the largest shake-ups in Congress in the history of American politics. Most people know that I’m a fan of Mitt Romney and like nothing more than to point out Romney’s part in this prelude to the Revolution of 2010.
Here is Brown on election night honoring Romney:
Brown is already on record for backing Mitt Romney in 2012 if he decides to run:
Brown ran on an anti-Obamacare platform. Massachusetts residents were satisfied with their Massachusetts Health Care and did not want Obamacare interfering with this system. Brown received wide support from both Republicans, Independents, and many of who were connected to various Tea Party groups. As a Massachusetts resident myself who has many friends in the so-called Tea Party ranks, many of who describe me as being to the right of Attila The Hun, supported Brown myself. Was I 100% satisfied with Scott Brown’s views on all issues? No! Saying that, I am a realist and knew that a far right candidate would not have won here. So I backed Brown 110% and so did many of those Tea Party friends.
Over his brief tenure as Senator, Brown has remained popular in this state. A recent PPP poll gave him the second highest favorability rating among all the U.S. Senators.
Today, Scott Brown was given the title of ‘Bostonian of the Year‘ by the Boston Globe. The full story can be found HERE. It was this story that prompted me to write this piece.
The point I’m trying to make is this: NO ONE decides what the Tea Party likes or dislikes. As with many things in life, including the Massachusetts Health Care system, when it comes to using it as the basis of Obamacare, it’s not a ONE SIZE FITS ALL.
So, when you read that the “Tea Party” wants this or the “Tea Party” doesn’t like that, be a little skeptical. The Tea Party’s emphasis on issues can vary from state to state, region to region.
The Tea Party is a movement. The political tastes of those in the movement vary. There are Centrists, Moderates, Conservatives, Independents, and Republicans – all under the same tent. Don’t be fooled by trying to fit its members into a mold. You won’t be successful.
Chris Cillizza, from the “The Fix“, once again ranks Mitt Romney as one of the most influential voices within the Republican party. Here is what he had to say about Mitt’s recent activities:
The former Massachusetts governor is slowly and methodically rolling out endorsements in state after state, acting like what he is: the current frontrunner for the 2012 Republican nomination. Romney still has questions to answer: Can he empathize with voters distressed about the economy? Will he compete in Iowa? But there are fewer unknowns surrounding Romney than anyone else looking at the race.
Here is the full list of those that made the top ten:
1. Haley Barbour 2. Mitt Romney 3. Sarah Palin 4. Chris Christie 5. Tim Pawlenty 6. Scott Brown 7. Newt Gingrich 8. Nikki Haley 9. Bobby Jindal 10. Mike Huckabee
The top five are pictured up above in order of their rank.
P.S. There is a poll at the end of the post. I suggest that you go vote.
Regarding the 2012 presidential election Senator Scott Brown says “I’m going to support Governor Romney.” It was Brown’s spokesman Colin Reed that later added the caveat that Brown “will be with [Romney] again if he chooses to run.”
It would seem that Scott Brown is certain that Romney will run and that Brown is more than likely to endorse him. Brown did add that “I am going to see who is out there in the field and then make my decision,” but I take that more as an effort to appear not focused in on any one candidate yet. Brown’s words certainly sound like an endorsement to me, although not an official one. But then again Romney is not officially running yet, is he?
Senate Election Night Flashback: Scott Brown thanks Gov. Romney
Scott Brown: I especially want to thank a very special friend, whose encouragement from the beginning helped show me the way, and show us the way to victory — and that is former Governor Mitt Romney. Thank you Governor.
Mitt Romney’s speech brought viewers to their feet many times this afternoon at CPAC. It was truly inspirational. Divided into four segments, the video footage of Mitt’s speech is posted below. Included is a short introduction by Senator Scott Brown (he had very kind words to say about Mitt).
Be sure you bookmark this, as it will be neat to come back often and refresh your memory of why this man needs to be the next President of the United States:
Scott Brown Introduces Mitt Romney at CPAC
Mitt Romney’s Speech at CPAC 2/18/2010 (PART 1)
Mitt Romney’s Speech at CPAC 2/18/2010 (PART 2)
Mitt Romney’s Speech at CPAC 2/18/2010 (PART 3)
Governor Romney’s Remarks to CPAC 2010
Feb 18, 2010
Thank you to Jay and to Scott for those generous introductions. Both these men have made real contributions to our nation. It’s good to be back at CPAC. I can’t think of an audience I’d rather be addressing today.
I spent the weekend in Vancouver. As always, the Olympic Games were inspiring. But in case you didn’t hear the late-breaking news, the gold medal in the downhill was taken away from American Lindsey Vonn. It was determined that President Obama is going downhill faster than she is.
I’m not telling you something you don’t know when I say that our conservative movement took a real hit in the 2008 elections. The victors were not exactly gracious in their big win: Media legs were tingling. Time Magazine’s cover pictured the Republican elephant and declared it an endangered species. The new president himself promised change of biblical proportion. And given his filibuster-proof Senate and lopsided House, he had everything he needed to deliver it.
They won, we lost. But you know, you learn a lot about people when you see how they react to losing. We didn’t serve up excuses or blame our fellow citizens. Instead, we listened to the American people, we sharpened our thinking and our arguments, we spoke with greater persuasiveness, we took our message to more journals and airwaves, and in the American tradition, some even brought attention to our cause with rallies and Tea parties.
I know that most of you have watched intently as the conservative comeback began in Virginia and exploded onto the scene in New Jersey. But as a Massachusetts man, who, like my fellow Bay-staters, has over the years, been understandably regarded somewhat suspiciously in gatherings like this, let me take just a moment to exalt in a Scott Brown victory!
For that victory that stopped Obama–care and turned back the Reid-Pelosi liberal tide, we have something to that you’d never think you’d hear at CPAC, “Thank you Massachusetts!”
2009 was the President’s turn to suffer losses, and not just at the ballot box, but also in bill after bill in Congress, and most importantly, in his failure to reignite the economy. In how he has responded to these defeats, too, we have learned a great about him and about his team.
He began by claiming that he had not failed at all. Remember the B+ grade he gave himself for his first year? Tell that to the 4 million Americans who lost their jobs last year, and to the millions more who stopped looking. Explain that to the world’s financial markets who gaped at trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Square that with the absence of any meaningful sanctions against Iran even as it funds terror and races to become a nuclear nation. President Obama’s self-proclaimed B+ will go down in history as the biggest exaggeration since Al Gore’s invention of the internet!
Unable to convince us that his failure was a success, he turned to the second dodge of losing teams: try to pin the blame on someone else. Did you see his State of the Union address? First, he took on the one group in the room that was restrained from responding—the Supreme Court. The President found it inexplicable that the first amendment right of free speech should be guaranteed not just to labor union corporations and media corporations, but equally to all corporations, big and small. When it was all over, I think most Americans felt as I did: his noisy critique and bombast did not register as clear and convincingly as Justice Alito’s silent lips forming these words: “Not true!”
Next he blamed the Republicans in the room, condescending to lecture them on the workings of the budget process, a process many of them had in fact mastered while he was still at Harvard Law School. He blamed Republicans for the gridlock that has blocked his favorite legislation; but he knows as well as we do that he did not need one single solitary Republican vote in either house to pass his legislation. It was Democrats who blocked him, Democrats who said “no” to his liberal agenda after they had been home to their districts and heard from the American people. As Everett Dirksen used to say, “When they felt the heat, they saw the light.” God bless every American who said no!
Of course, the President accuses us of being the party of “no.” It’s as if he thinks that saying “no” is by definition a bad thing. In fact, it is right and praiseworthy to say no to bad things. It is right to say no to cap and trade, no to card check, no to government healthcare, and no to higher taxes. My party should never be a rubber stamp for rubber check spending.
But before we move away from this “no” epithet the Democrats are fond of applying to us, let’s ask the Obama folks why they say “no” –no to a balanced budget, no to reforming entitlements, no to malpractice reform, no to missile defense In Eastern Europe, no to prosecuting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a military tribunal, and no to tax cuts that create new jobs. You see, we conservatives don’t have a corner on saying no; we’re just the ones who say it when that’s the right thing to do!
And that leads us to who he has most recently charged with culpability for his failures: the American people. It seems that we have failed to understand his wise plans for us. If he just slows down, he reasons, and makes a concerted effort to explain Obama-care in a way even we can understand, if we just listen better, then we will get it.
Actually, Americans have been listening quite attentively. And they have been watching. When he barred CSPAN from covering the healthcare deliberations, they saw President Obama break his promise of transparency. When the Democrat leadership was empowered to bribe Nebraska’s Senator Nelson, they saw President Obama break his promise of a new kind of politics in Washington. And when he cut a special and certainly unconstitutional healthcare deal with the unions, they saw him not just break his promise, they saw the most blatant and reprehensible manifestation of political payoff in modern memory. No, Mr. President, the American people didn’t hear and see too little, they saw too much!
Here again, with all due respect, President Obama fails to understand America. He said: “With all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, ‘What’s in it for me?’” That’s not at all what they were asking. They were asking: “What’s in it for America?”
America will not endure government run healthcare, a new and expansive entitlement, an inexplicable and surely vanishing cut in Medicare and an even greater burden of taxes. Americans said no because Obama-care is bad care for America!
When it comes to shifting responsibility for failure, however, no one is a more frequent object of President Obama’s reproach than President Bush. It’s wearing so thin that even the late night shows make fun of it. I am convinced that history will judge President Bush far more kindly—he pulled us from a deepening recession following the attack of 9-11, he overcame teachers unions to test school children and evaluate schools, he took down the Taliban, waged a war against the jihadists and was not afraid to call it what it is—a war, and he kept us safe. I respect his silence even in the face of the assaults on his record that come from this administration. But at the same time, I also respect the loyalty and indefatigable defense of truth that comes from our “I don’t give a damn” Vice President Dick Cheney!
I’m afraid that after all the finger pointing is finished, it has become clear who is responsible for President Obama’s lost year, the 10% unemployment year—President Obama and his fellow Democrats. So when it comes to pinning blame, pin the tail on the donkeys.
There’s a good deal of conjecture about the cause of President Obama’s failures. As he frequently reminds us, he assumed the presidency at a difficult time. That’s the reason we argued during the campaign that these were not the times for on the job training. Had he or his advisors spent even a few years in the real economy, they would have learned that the number one cause of failure in the private sector is lack of focus, and that the first rule of turning around any troubled enterprise is focus, focus, focus. And so, when he assumed the presidency, his energy should have been focused on fixing the economy and creating jobs, and to succeeding in our fight against radical violent jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, he applied his time and political capital to his ill-conceived healthcare takeover and to building his personal popularity in foreign countries. He failed to focus, and so he failed.
But there was an even bigger problem than lack of focus. Ronald Reagan used to say this about liberals: “It’s not that they’re ignorant, it’s that what they know is wrong.” Too often, when it came to what President Obama knew, he was wrong.
He correctly acknowledged that the government doesn’t create jobs, that only the private sector can do that. He said that the government can create the conditions, the environment, which leads the private sector to add employment. But consider not what he said, but what he did last year, and ask whether it helped or hurt the environment for investment, growth, and new jobs.
Announcing 2011 tax increases for individuals and businesses and for capital gains, hurt.
Passing cap and trade, hurt.
Giving trial lawyers a free pass, hurt.
Proposing card check to eliminate secret ballots in union elections, hurt.
Holding on to GM stock and insisting on calling the shots there, hurt.
Making a grab for healthcare, almost 1/5th of our economy, hurt.
Budgeting government deficits in the trillions, hurt.
And scapegoating and demonizing businesspeople, hurt.
President Obama instituted the most anti-growth, anti-investment, anti-jobs measures we’ve seen in our lifetimes. He called his agenda ambitious. I call it reckless. He scared employers, so jobs were scarce. His nearly trillion dollar stimulus created not one net new job in the private sector, but it saved and grew jobs in the government sector– the one place we should have shed jobs. And even today, because he has been unwilling or unable to define the road ahead, uncertainty and lack of predictability permeate the private economy, and prolongs its stall. America is not better off than it was 1.8 trillion dollars ago.
Will the economy and unemployment recover? Of course. Thanks to a vibrant and innovative citizenry, they always do. But this president will not deserve the credit he will undoubtedly claim. He has prolonged the recession, expanded the pain of unemployment, and added to the burden of debt we will leave future generations. President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their team have failed the American people, and that is why their majority will be out the door. Isn’t it fitting that so many of those who have contempt for the private sector will soon find themselves back in it?
The people of America are looking to conservatives for leadership, and we must not fail them.
Conservatism has had from its inception a vigorously positive, intellectually rigorous agenda. That agenda should have three pillars: strengthen the economy, strengthen our security, and strengthen our families.
We will strengthen the economy by simplifying and lowering taxes, by replacing outmoded regulation with modern, dynamic regulation, by opening markets to American goods, by strengthening our currency and our capital markets, and by investing in research and basic science. Instead of leading the world in how much we borrow, we will make sure that we lead the world in how much we build and create and invest.
We will strengthen our security by building missile defense, restoring our military might, and standing-by and strengthening our intelligence officers. And conservatives believe in providing constitutional rights to our citizens, not to enemy combatants like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed!
On our watch, the conversation with a would-be suicide bomber will not begin with the words, “You have the right to remain silent!”
Our conservative agenda strengthens our families in part by putting our schools on track to be the best in the world. Because great schools start with great teachers, we will insist on hiring teachers from the top third of college graduates, and we will give better teachers better pay. School accountability, school choice and cyber schools will be priorities. We will put parents and teachers back in charge of education, not the fat cat CEO’s of the teachers unions!
Strong families will have excellent healthcare. Getting healthcare coverage for the uninsured should be accomplished at the state level, not a one-size-fits all Pelosi plan. The right way to rein-in healthcare cost is not by making it more like the Post Office, it’s by making it more like a consumer-driven market. The answer for healthcare is market incentives not healthcare by a Godzilla-size government bureaucracy!
When it comes to our role in the world, our conservative agenda hews to the principles that have defined our nation’s foreign policy for over six decades: we will promote and defend the American ideals of political freedom, free enterprise, and human rights. We will stand with our allies, and confront those who threaten peace and destroy liberty.
There’s much more on our positive, intellectually rigorous conservative agenda. Not all of it is popular. But the American people have shown that they are ready for truth to trump hope. The truth is that government is not the solution to all our problems.
This year, I have taken the time to write a book that tells the truth about the challenges our nation faces, and about the conservative solutions needed to overcome them. I have titled it: No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. I’ve set up a booth outside so that you can buy a few hundred copies each. Well, maybe one or two.
Sometimes I wonder whether Washington’s liberal politicians understand the greatness of America. Let me explain why I say that.
At Christmas-time, I was in Wal-Mart to buy some toys for my grandkids. As I waited in the check-out line, I took a good look around the store. I thought to myself of the impact Sam Walton had on his company. Sam Walton was all about good value on everything the customer might want. And so is Wal-Mart: rock bottom prices and tens of thousands of items.
The impact that founders like Sam Walton have on their enterprises is actually quite remarkable. In many ways, Microsoft is a reflection of Bill Gates, just as Apple is of Steve Jobs. Disneyland is a permanent tribute to Walt Disney himself—imaginative and whimsical. Virgin Airlines is as irreverent and edgy as its founder. As you look around you, you see that people shape enterprises, sometimes for many years even after they are gone.
People shape businesses.
People shape countries.
America reflects the values of the people who first landed here, those who founded the nation, those who won our freedom, and those who made America the leader of the world.
America was discovered and settled by pioneers. Later, the founders launched an entirely new concept of nation, one where the people would be sovereign, not the king, not the state. And this would apply not just to government, but also to the American economy: the individual would pursue his or her happiness in freedom, independent from government dictate. Every American was free to be an inventor, an innovator, a founder. America became the land of opportunity and a nation of pioneers.
We attracted people of pioneering spirit from around the world. They came here for freedom and opportunity, knowing that the cost was incredibly high: leaving behind family and the familiar, learning a new language, often living at first in poverty, sometimes facing prejudice, working long and hard hours.
All of these pioneers built a nation of incomparable prosperity and unrivaled security.
After its founding, our national economy grew thanks to more pioneers—people like Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, William Procter and Robert Wood Johnson, Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard and Thomas Watson. These are names we know—but the less well known are just as vital American innovators, and they number in the millions.
That American pioneering spirit is what propelled us to master the industrial age just as today we marshal the information age.
This course for America, chosen by the founders, has been settled for over 200 years. Ours is the creed of the pioneers, the innovators, the strivers who expect no guarantee of success, but ask only to live and work in freedom. This creed is under assault in Washington today. Liberals are convinced that government knows better than the people how to run our businesses, how to choose winning technologies, how to manage healthcare, how to grow an economy, and how to order our very lives. They want to gain through government takeover what they could never achieve in the competitive economy—power and control over the people of America. If these liberal neo-monarchists succeed, they will kill the very spirit that has built the nation—the innovating, inventing, creating, independent current that runs from coast to coast.
This is the liberal agenda for government. It does not encourage pioneers, inventors and investors—it suffocates them.
In a world where others have lost their liberty by trading it away for the false promises of the state, we choose to hold to our founding principles. We will stop these power-seekers where they stand. We will keep America, America, by retaining its character as the land of opportunity. We welcome the entrepreneur, the inventor, the innovator. We will insist on greatness from every one of our citizens, and rather than apologizing for who we are or for what we have accomplished, we will celebrate our nation’s strength and goodness. American patriots have defeated tyrants, liberated the oppressed, and rescued the afflicted. America’s model of innovation, capitalism and free enterprise has lifted literally billons of the world’s people out of poverty. America has been a force for good like no other in this world, and for that we make no apology.
I was not aware that Senator Scott Brown was going to be at the ‘Bowling w/ Mitt’ event, so that was a pleasant surprise. When I arrived (about 30 minutes late), even though Governor Romney was speaking passionately and had raised the volume of his voice so the crowd could hear him, I was boxed out of the crowd and could not hear what he was saying. A few minutes later, he introduced Senator Brown who also took a few minutes to speak. Approx 110 in attendance – a lot of people to fit in the small area that was reserved. I believe they expected a couple dozen less than that.
The bowling alley was dark, so it was a challenge to get good pictures with the slow shutter speed. Still, we have a few interesting shots.
Governor Romney Introduces Scott Brown at Victory Party:
[I'm adding video of Brown giving special thanks to Romney that we haven't posted yet ~Nate]
I especially want to thank a very special friend, whose encouragement from the beginning helped show me the way, and show us the way to victory – and that is former Governor Mitt Romney. Thank you Governor.
In the beginning, Obama created massive deficits and new entitlements.
And the earth was without respect for the west, and darkness was upon the face of America.
And Obama said, let there be Change. And there was Change.
Year One of The One is history. And so it is with some sense of vindication that I, and many conservatives, look back at that year and realize that those hesitations, objections, and concerns that we voiced about what an Obama presidency would mean for the United States of America were all completely justified, utterly valid, and in their own (probably racist and heretical) way prophetic.
Has it only been one year? It seems so long ago that the newly inaugurated president ignored common sense, logistical reality, and the underlying difficulty of the task, and promised with doe-eyed optimism, shored up with that now trademark and pseudo-stern manner of his, that he’d be shutting down the American Gulag in Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay. Of course, today that insidious prison still has its doors open, and its halls crowded with misunderstood parishioners of the Religion of Peace. And never mind that those who once knelt in prayer within those dastardly cinder blocks, but were set free to be “reeducated” are busily plotting and carrying out yet more “man caused disasters” as retribution for… the failed policies of the last eight years.
And now instead of the triumphant and promised closing down of the Great American Blot, Barack Obama celebrates his first anniversary as our Regulator in Chief with a stiff and bitter piece of humble pie. Boston Cream Pie, to be exact, evenly Browned over the flames of righteous indignation and the cold, fierce reality that Americans tend to be a rather pushy lot, quick to recognize and reject any obvious and overbearing attempt to drive us down that road to serfdom. Even in a state that repeatedly elected Ted Kennedy and J.F.K(erry).
But Obama has responded to the political equivalent of Sparta’s 300 with the same tired, arrogant, and narcissistic rhetorical nonsense that is coming to define this man: He blamed Bush. “The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office, people are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years but what’s happened over the last eight years.” It would appear that voters in Massachusetts were listening when Mr. Obama had admonished us all to “grab a mop…help clean up“.
But the President was right about our anger. We are angry. At him.
If we are to believe the leg-tingled, sycophantic backscratchers and bootlickers known as “the media,” then this unprecedented president has had an unprecedented year, achieving the unprecedented and long clamored for change, that is, “the fundamental transformation of America” that has forever been the utopian vision of the American people. Or something. After 223 years of inequality and that hampering inconvenience known as the Constitution, true social justice had come to Washington, in the form of a “light-skinned African American, with no negro dialect.” Truly, Progressivism has come out of the fringe and wilderness of political exorcism and into the red, white, and blue of the American mainstream. We are all Socialists now!
Apparently, however, fundamental transformation means a 30% rise in what was already an absurdly, and statistically abnormally high rate of unemployment. The United States now enjoys the double digits heretofore only common in Europe and elsewhere. Burgeoning models of enterprise and freedom, like, say… Cuba. And despite claiming to have “saved or created” a million (or was it a billion?) jobs, more Americans today find themselves without one since the days of Jimmy Carter. Could it be that Statism leads, inevitably to job loss? How many jobs were lost in 2009? Nearly 3 million. Personally (granted, I’m a right-wing nut job) I think I liked the “status-quo” wherein people had jobs, and were even paid for doing them!
The unprecedented unemployment rate was supposed to be staved off by the wonderfully Randian named “American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.” This so-called stimulus was Keynesian binge drinking – but we taxpayers are the ones left with the hangover. To Obama, and other redistributionists, it certainly sounded like a much better idea than it turned out to be. Costing nearly 800 billion dollars (which I think is the new revised number of jobs that were “saved or created”) and promising to “put Americans back to work” (and capping unemployment at 8%) the bill hampered economic recovery by redistributing wealth to important and shovel ready projects like creating robotic bees ($9.3 million), and the relocation of an unimportant bridge ($54 million). Indeed, it can be argued (if you are Paul Krugman) that this monstrosity did keep its promise of putting Americans back to work. That is, back to work hunting for… work.
Riding the success of economic futility, Mr. Obama pressed forward, determined to not only run the United States into the ground, but also the iconoclastic, union-laden symbol of can-do-it Americanism: General Motors. After dispatching of GM’s hapless CEO, Obama placed his hand-picked successor into the driver’s seat of a company crippled by unionism and government mandated lunacy. In the process, Uncle Sam became an owner of the company, ensuring that it will never more turn a profit. General Motors, meet Amtrack; and welcome to a life of subsidization. Sensing that inevitability, The President of the United States offered to help everyone in America buy a new car, pending government approval of course. And so Cash for Clunkers took the market by storm, creating false demand and compressing years of sales into a very short, very haphazard several weeks. Since the boondoggled program ended, auto sales have slumped, and dealers from coast to coast have been left asking, “Dude, where’s the government money for my car?”
Emboldened at the remarkable success he was having in the 57 states, Obama set out on several foreign tours that presented him ample opportunity to bow to the pressures and special interests of countries considered both friends and enemies (all of whom the Lightworker has managed to anger). He shook hands (bro’ style) with Hugo Chavez, and nearly kissed the feet of the Saudi King. All the while never missing an opportunity to dismiss American exceptionalism, its military power and of course, cultural influence. After all, we obtained such status through exploitation, profiteering, slavery, and uninhibited greed. At long last the chickens of American Imperialism were coming home to roost. It was time for our global comeuppance, humble pie on a national scale, baked with love by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Only, I suppose in that case, he is busy not baking pies, but yellow cake.
Except the American people weren’t having it. In fact, they were not having much of anything. Retail sales slumped, jobless claims rose, and Obama reached never before seen approval ratings. The bad kind. Unprecedented lows. Not even the detestable George W. Bush attained such cellar-dwelling numbers in his first year as were reached by Barack Hussein Obama. Mmm. Mmm. Mmm.
He implemented a surge in Afghanistan after surging to victory in the Democratic primaries by disparaging the surge in Iraq. Which by the way, is still an American theater of war, even though his promised withdrawal date of March 2009 has long come and gone. Coming to his Afghan decision was difficult. He pondered the foggy bottom of options for days. And weeks. And months. In the meantime, while he dithered, he managed to wage war on Fox News, which, if you had not heard, is not a “legitimate news organization,” on Rush Limbaugh, who had the audacity of hoping Obama would fail, and on the American taxpayer. Keeping his pledge to “not raise taxes by one singe dime” he managed to, in fact, raise taxes by several dimes. An underachiever, this man is not.
Using such monumental success, and wielding the magical mantle of Best. President. Ever. Mr. Obama traveled to Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts to cast his spell on would-be voters and plebeians who were engaging in off-year special elections. In every case, and rather soundly, that candidate he championed fell to Republican challengers. The only possible explanation for such defeats: racism and bigotry and subterfuge Tea Party maniacs. A referendum on Him these elections were not. Obama was, and will ever be guiltless. Instead these elections are merely the manifestations of those bitter, God-loving, gun clinging neophytes who are so easily confused, and so quickly whipped into irrational frenzies orchestrated by the GOP Machine, nefariously led by Dick Cheney and his Evil Designs.
One can only hope that the president will continue to campaign for Democrats in this upcoming election year.
After 411 official speeches, comments and remarks, 178 TelePrompTer appearances, 42 news conferences (none since July), 158 interviews (a staggering number) 23 Townhall meetings (with SEIU?) 46 trips to 58 cities and 30 states (only 27 more to go!), 10 overseas expeditions to 21 nations, 160 Air Force One Flights, 28 fundraisers (Bush did six and raised more money), a 1.6 trillion dollar increase in debt and 26 vacation days, the Year of The One has come to a close.
And what of us who no longer believe (or never did) in the Gospel of Barack? We hope for change. And then, we vote for it.