Book of the Month Review: Coolidge by Amity Shlaes

It was a long read, but well worth it. Coolidge by Amity Shlaes chronicles the life of the 30th President of the United States. He served in the time between World War I and the Great Depression (1923-1929) and thus is often forgotten in the annals of history. Nevertheless, he accomplished a great deal during the Roaring Twenties. The biography details his goals, accomplishments,and the key issues of the time, in a totally engrossing narrative driven manner.

Calvin Coolidge emerged to prominence as the Governor of Massachusetts. While in that post, the Boston Police went on strike. This was an era where strikes were all too common and very problematic. Coal Miners, for example,would often threaten to strike and leave most of the nation without heat for the Winter.

The “Boston Police Strike” became a national headline, with other governors and police departments watching anxiously, as the results of this strike would greatly influence cities across the country. Coolidge resisted pressure to a shocking conclusion, which I won’t spoil here. His extremely bold decisions catapulted him to political prominence.

That would lead him to a nomination as the running mate for Republican Presidential Candidate Warren Harding, They would campaign and win on “normalcy,” an end to the uncertainty and bevy of new laws from the Wilson administration. Now the Vice President of the United States, Coolidge was surprised at how little power the office really held and the lack of respect he was given in Senate. Of course, Warren Harding would die in office and leave Coolidge to carry out his policies.

As President, Coolidge slashed taxes and the national debt. For the first time, the nation saw airplanes traverse the skies. Coolidge would be the first to light a Christmas Tree strung with electronic lights on the White House lawn. The carving of Mt. Rushmore was commissioned, with the inscription written by President Coolidge.

He would complain that ”Democrats spend money like water,” and would veto a bevy of wasteful spending bills coming from both parties (popularizing the “Pocket Veto”). His administration would be the first to use “scientific taxation” now popularly referenced as the Laffer Curve. He would keep the size of the federal government in check, even when floods in the South and his native New England, tempted more, and he would humbly leave office after his first full-term, in respect of the example George Washington set.

Upon leaving office, he rejected offers to work on Wall Street, fearing a stock market collapse (The Great Depression loomed). Instead, he accepted a position authoring a newspaper column. He disagreed with the policies of his former staffer, now President, Herbert Hoover. The surplus he worked so hard to create would disappear as government spending rose to combat the depression. As the deficit grew under Hoover new taxes came into law. His surplus would turn into a $2 billion deficit and the tax rates he worked so hard to lower would be raised to a whopping 60%, exasperating the nation’s problems. In one of his columns he wrote, “A higher tax means real wages are lower… every home is burdened.”

When Hoover eventually failed in his re-election bid, FDR promised “bold, persistent experimentation,” quite the opposite of the “normalcy” Harding/Coolidge rode into office years before. The nation had turned back to the progressive policies that failed during the Wilson administration. Coolidge would pass away shortly thereafter, leaving a legacy of humility and honor in the US Presidency, one that has often been overlooked.

I purchased Coolidge brand new on Ebay, and certainly got more than what I paid out of it. Now I’m selling it back and buying my next book, The Damascus Countdown by Joel Rosenberg. If you’re at all interested, I’m covering shipping. It is listed on Ebay here.

If you enjoyed this post, please click the Facebook “Like” button on the right sidebar. You can share your opinions in the comment section below or by tweeting to@Ryan_Kantor. Thanks for reading!

Chris Christie Extinguishes Chances to Become GOP Leader

It wasn’t but a year ago that Republicans across the nation were singing the praises of NJ Governor, Chris Christie. He had just fought entrenched NJ government employees in a liberal state to fix their pension system. He fought the NJ Teacher’s Union and others in the state to bring the state’s finances back within reason. He said:

“The Teacher’s Union is about the accumulation and exercise of raw power.”

His outspokenness against perceived wrongdoers in his state became nationally known and made him a beloved figure among the GOP–and even many moderates.

Unfortunately, that has unraveled. He was the keynote speaker at the GOP Convention that introduced Romney as the nominee. Personally, I thought his speech was very good, but many felt it was too self-centered and didn’t do enough to boost Romney.

Then came the “super storm,” Hurricane Sandy, in his home state. His state was decimated, and when Obama came for photo ops, Christie earned goodwill among the generally Obama-friendly populace of NJ by praising the President and taking loads of amicable photos with him. Many say Sandy stole Romney’s momentum and Christie’s appearances with Obama were a part of that.

Finally on Thursday (1/17/13), Gov. Christie slammed the NRA. They ran an ad calling Obama a hypocrite for rejecting the notion that schools should consider armed guards, while his children have armed guards at school. Christie called the ad “reprehensible,” and said the NRA has lost some credibility. It is below for your viewing.

Gov. Christie is clearly positioning himself to fend off a future Democratic challenger for the Governor’s seat–namely Cory Booker–at the expense of paving the way for a 2016 Presidential run, and that’s his prerogative. It seems that Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Bobby Jindal are all eyeing 2016, and they’re stronger candidates anyway. For Gov. Christie, it’ll take a while for Republicans to forget these missteps, just as it took the GOP faithful years to forget forgive Mitt Romney’s liberal moves and statements as the governor of a very blue state. At this point, I don’t even expect him to run in 2016. Ann Coulter will be distraught.

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. You can share your opinions in the comment section below or by tweeting to @Ryan_Kantor. Thanks for reading!

Fiscal Cliff Deal Not a Total Failure, Debt Ceiling Negotiations Loom

The Fiscal Cliff debacle is over, thank goodness. Unfortunately, taxes went up on everyone with earned income and doubly so on the top 0.7%. This is because the Social Security portion of the FICA tax, a flat tax on individuals’ first $113,700 was increased by from 4.2% to 6.2%. In theory, FICA funds Social Security and Medicare. In addition, the marginal income tax for income earned over $400,000 (for individuals) jumps all the way to 39.6% from 35%. Explained below…

That being said, the fiscal cliff deal is not a complete flop for the nation’s income statement or its citizens. Here’s why. While the increase in taxes won’t do much to help revenue (depending on where you believe we currently lie along the Laffer Curve), the automatic sequestration cuts weren’t stopped, they were just delayed until March (the two month delay cost $24 billion).

… [the fiscal cliff deal] cuts spending by about $900 billion over ten years — as all but $332 billion of the $1.2 trillion in scheduled sequester cuts are still set to kick in.  (Of course, 10-year projections and $1.85 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.)  So, by this measure, the deal involves about a 3-to-2 ratio of spending cuts to tax hikes.

While Democrats had the upper hand in the Fiscal Cliff debate, Republicans should have the upper hand in the debt ceiling negotiations. This is because Democrats will be fearful of automatic spending cuts and a potential shutdown the government (though Republicans fear the spending cuts to National Defense).

Consider this… Which party do you think was more fearful of a large increase in income tax rates? The GOP of course, and that’s why they had more to lose in the fiscal cliff debate. Conversely, who do you think is more fearful of a government  shutdown and missed payments to government programs such as unemployment insurance? Most would say the Democrats. So you can see why the Republicans will have so much more leverage when the debt ceiling debate invariably gets nasty.

With that in mind, Republicans need to use their leverage to make meaningful entitlement cuts. Social Security and Medicare are the largest and third largest outlays for the federal government, respectively. Any politician who is unwilling to touch them, is not serious about fixing our budget deficit. A place to start may be slowing inflation adjustment for Social Security and increasing the minimum age for Medicare. This absolutely shouldn’t be a clashing point between parties. Unfortunately, it probably will be, as Mrs. Pelosi has already said she wants more tax hikes, likely in lieu of serious spending cuts. Republicans almost surely won’t make that trade, and President Obama says he will not negotiate at all. It’s hard to understand… There will be another clash in Congress this March, and their approval ratings will have to find something worse than root canals and lice to be less popular than.

“That’s funny, I don’t care who you are!”

What’s the solution? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. You can share your opinions in the comment section below or by tweeting to @Ryan_Kantor. Thanks for reading!

What Does It Mean To Love Old Glory?

Back in 2005 there was serious discussion in Congress about passing a constitutional amendment that would ban the desecration of the American flag. The language of the amendment read,

“The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”

At first blush I thought this was great. With this amendment we’d be able to arrest those horrible communists who don’t respect the sacrifices of our armed servicemen, and heaven knows, I’d love that. Unfortunately, there is a little more to it than that. After a little more thought, I realized that this amendment curtails free speech, and in a large way, changes the symbol that the American flag embodies.

Speaking against the amendment, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-New York, 8th) stated, “If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents.”

You see, desecrating an American flag is putrid and wrong because it represents a total disrespect for freedom and all the good we do across the globe, but as soon as it becomes illegal the flag can no longer represent freedom. How could a flag that is illegal to damage (such a monumentous restriction of free speech that an amendment is needed to overcome it) truly represent freedom? The amendment was not passed and subsequently sent to the states, as it failed by a mere one vote in the Senate.

I only mention that to illuminate the fact that the flag is a symbol for values, values that we love. It is not literally the flag that we love, that’s a third grader’s understanding (although if it’s a Massachusetts third grader, you would have learned from the final debate that they’re the best in the country in math and English). It’s the freedom and opportunity represented by the flag make it what it is…a beacon of hope.

President Reagan said, “America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.”

I believe that. I believe we are not just another country, but one whose influence should spread and as our it does, so does freedom. Our flag represents that.

When asked about American exceptionalism, President Obama said the following,

“I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

If everyone is exceptional, then no one is. I don’t think it is a stretch to hypothesize that our current president does not believe that America is and should be that “shining city upon a hill” (and that doesn’t make him a horrible man. I’ve heard similar sentiment from other good Americans).

Furthermore, in 2008 Michelle Obama said, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country”

She explained that the reason for that wasn’t just because Barack was doing well, but more so because the country was “hungry for change.” With almost the exact opposite sentiment, Vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, has vowed to reapply our founding principles, which makes one wonder how far we have strayed from those principles.

I believe America is a beacon of hope to the world. If you love America and believe it is exceptional for the values it stands for, and not just because it’s your country (i.e., in the same vein that the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism), then you’d be obliged to agree that the disappearance of the very principles that the flag represents would alter the its meaning and leave you unable to love and view it with the same pride that you did when it meant something completely different.

Do you love the flag or what it represents?

To be clear, if we stray from our founding principles there is a path back. However, it is important to note our very special role in the world, and remember that we are not exceptional simply because we are America, but rather because of what we stand for, what we’ve done, and what we continue to do.

Clemson’s annual Military Appreciation Day was this past Saturday against Virginia Tech and I’d like to share some “exceptional,” patriotic pictures of a very, very special day.

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. You can share your opinions in the comment section below or by tweeting to @Ryan_Kantor. Thanks for reading!

Maybe You Shouldn’t Vote After All

I ran into an article on Yahoo.com with some interesting statistics on the group of Americans that will decide the fate of our nation–”undecided likely voters.”

While 69 percent of likely voters report they’re paying a great deal of attention to the race, the figure drops to 59 percent for persuadable likely voters. Among the larger group of all registered voters, just 31 percent of persuadables show much interest in the campaign.

Over time we’ve seen many “non-partisan” get out the vote initiatives, and I simply don’t understand it. If only 31% of persuadable registered voters show interest in the campaign–which I interpret to mean following the campaign–then wouldn’t a 31% turnout among that group be best for America? Why would anybody want a group of disinterested, and uninformed Americans to vote recklessly? Of course, those initiatives aren’t aimed only at that one voting block, but the point remains the same: not everyone should get out and vote.

It is not your civic duty to vote, it is your civic duty to make a well-informed vote. If you’re is unable to do that, don’t compound the error by voting recklessly, especially with an economic crisis and a struggle with Iran right around the corner.

According to an August 2006 Zogby poll, only two in five Americans know that we have three branches of government and can name them. A 2006 National Geographic poll showed that six in ten young people (aged 18 to 24) could not find Iraq on the map. The political scientists Michael Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter, surveying a wide variety of polls measuring knowledge of history, report that fewer than half of all Americans know who Karl Marx was or which war the Battle of Bunker Hill was fought in. Worse, they found that just 49 percent of Americans know that the only country ever to use a nuclear weapon in a war is their own.

During recent shows, Bill O’Rielly has been claiming that undecided voters will determine this election, and because that group follows the election less vigilantly, it will largely be determined by emotions and likability. It seems that he wishes those items were not so important, and I surely agree. Likability should be utterly irrelevant in contrast to trustworthiness. Maybe they are somewhat connected, but how “cool” a candidate is, just shouldn’t matter. Not with the Arab Spring Winter and the economic malaise we are embattled with. In the words of Richard Kimball, co-founder of Project Vote Smart, “Somewhere, politicians decided it was more efficient to move us emotionally, than persuade us intellectually.”

Voter turnout in US Presidential elections is usually a shade over 50%. Mid-term elections are traditionally 15-20 points lower it seems. Most seem to think that’s deplorably low, but I’m still stuck on the lack of knowledge of the American populace. 49% of Americans don’t know that we dropped the nuclear bomb, and nobody else has yet? That’s what is truly deplorable!

I admit, I once nagged an old friend to vote in every election, as I said it was his civic duty. In hindsight, I realize I was wrong. If someone doesn’t take in interest in the election (which I contend we all should) then they ought not vote.

There has recently been much talk about voter suppression, in regard to laws that require a government issued ID to vote. Although IDs are required for a great many tasks and it seems challenging to be a productive and law-abiding citizen without one, some say getting an ID is too onerous of a requirement. I would argue that if it is not worth your time to get an ID to vote, and it’s not worth your time to register for an absentee ballot (which I’ve done three times and never needed an ID) then you don’t really need to bother voting anyway.

An anonymous commenter says it all more succinctly:

It is your civic duty to know about politics, the candidates, the parties, the Constitution, current events, and referenda and propositions that may be on the ballot. Then it is your civic duty to vote. Perhaps it would be your civic duty NOT to vote if you did not know about the above (i.e. if you don’t know what you are talking about, keep your mouth shut).

No crucifixion – the crux of your answer is correct: those who don’t know the issues shouldn’t vote, but everyone should know the issues.

Voting is a right, but it is also a great privilege that we have in America. All too often it is thrown away by not voting, or worse, abused by foolishly casting a vote without knowledge or based on emotions. Maybe I’m being a bit elitist, and for that I apologize, but voting should be treated with respect, care, and pro/con excel spreadsheets.

Kudos to the many inform the voter initiatives such as Project Vote Smart, a non-partisan, nonprofit educational organization. Educating the voters will always be more valuable to the country than convincing the population that they must vote.

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. You can share your opinions in the comment section below or by tweeting to @Ryan_Kantor. Thanks for reading!

If America Were A College Football Program

If America were a college football program, we wouldn’t be a Colorado or South Carolina. No, America would be a big program with a lot of prestige. We’d be a Notre Dame of sorts– former world beaters that everyone respects, though many hate (I’ve always thought it strange that Notre Dame, a religiously affiliated school that holds its athletes to such high academic standards would be so hated). America the football program would have a rich tradition, with all sorts of bowl records and National Championships, but we would be struggling.

Yes, America in recent years would be a program that has under-performed. The previous coach was solid, won his share of games, but finished his tenure with some historically bad seasons. Even after retirement, the rabid fan base hasn’t forgiven the previous coach and they brought it a fiery, young coach who can give an inspirational speech and ignite players and fans a like. Unfortunately, his first year at the helm has been even worse than the previous coach’s last year.

After winning just three games in year one of his new tenure, he brought in some of his recruits and while there was a lot of excitement, year two brought just four wins. Year three has just wrapped up, and while recruiting is still strong and the system is finally in place, still just five wins. What now?

In the last year of his contract, the coach insists that he has the program on the right track. His recruits are finally the core of the team, his system is in place, and while everything hasn’t gone as planned, he’s confident he can get the storied program back to the top.

The fan base is anxious, and unsure of what has happened to the program. Rivals they’re not used to losing to are beating them with regularity and while they are scared to fire the coach and restart with new schemes, they’re not sure if this new spread (the wealth) system will ever work. What are they to do? Do they fire the new coach and bring in an older, more traditional coach,  or continue the path with the current head ball coach?

That’s the question this great nation faces in November. Will they continue with their current leader, extending him another four years, and continue down a path the program has never tried. It’s a very different path from what previous coaches have done, but many feel it’s too early to give up. Many others just love the persona of the head coach. What will the program do? Only time will tell.

Would you fire the head coach? I’d rather just enjoy College Football until November.

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. You can share your opinions in the comment section below or by tweeting to @Ryan_Kantor. Thanks for reading!

The Next New Tax May Just Be The ‘Spite Tax’

Back in 2008, candidate Obama was debating Hillary Clinton on the subject of increasing the capital gains tax rate. Barack Obama was for increasing the tax rate. Hillary wasn’t so sure. The moderator succinctly explained that increases in the capital gains rate (due to its inverse relationship with economic activity) actually lead to decreases in government tax revenue. Despite this historical fact, then candidate, now President Obama said he would still work towards increasing the tax rate for “purposes of fairness.”

(Debate clip below)

After viewing that video, I ask you this: By “fairness,” does he really just mean spite? I ask that seriously, not in partisanship. Nobody benefits from such a tax increase. The taxpayers pay a higher tax rate and are scared away from investing, while the government has less money to spend on social programs. So why would anybody support such a policy? To be fair, he still hasn’t increased this particular tax rate. Since marquee tax hikes are generally unpopular, it could be move more appropriate in a second term though. Nonetheless, it’s more about the broad idea than the specific policy. You’ll see this theme or fairness at the DNC contrast sharply against the theme of self-made success that was oft-discussed at the RNC.

Does this underlying attitude or taxing for “fairness” represent your views?

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. You can share your opinions in the comment section below or by tweeting to @Ryan_Kantor. Thanks for reading!

Romney Campaign Makes A Splash With Paul Ryan VP Selection: What Do You Think?

In front of the USS Wisconsin, in Norfolk Virginia Mitt Romney introduced his Vice Presidential selection, Congressman Paul Ryan. It’s certainly a much bolder pick than many expected.

The Paul Ryan VP selection doesn’t play to a specific subset of people (e.g., Sarah Palin/Women or Marco Rubio/Hispanic-Americans) or a key swing state (Wisconsin will likely remain a blue state), but what it does is reframe the discussion. With all the negative campaigning that has been going on, there has not been enough direct contrasting of the two, very different, America’s that the candidates envision. Selecting Paul Ryan, the architect of the GOP budget proposal for the 2012 fiscal year, almost forces that discussion to begin again.

On that note, here are some of the quotes from Paul Ryan’s speech today that jumped out at me today:

We believe in equality of opportunity, not outcome…

The commitment we make to you is this: we won’t duck the tough issues, we will lead, we won’t blame others, we’ll take responsibility, and we won’t replace our founding principles, we will reapply them…

Our rights come from nature and God, not government!

Paul Ryan is only 42 years old, which in any other election may invite criticism of youth and lack of foreign policy experience. Given President Obama’s pre-election credentials I think that may come across as hypocritical and won’t be an attack that is leveled. Additionally, Fox News Senior Political Analyst, Brit Hume, said Ryan can speak intelligently about foreign policy and it shouldn’t present a major issue.

Paul Ryan is the intellectual leader of the Republican party yet he is young and energetic. As such, he’ll energize the Romney campaign without really bringing any controversy, with the exception of his budget proposal which does nothing more than focus the conversation on where it needs to be. I think it is a great selection because it shifts the debate squarely on the drastically different views of America.

As he said today,

“We can turn this thing around. We can!”

Conservative or far-left liberal, I am interested in hearing your thoughts on today’s selection. Please share in the comments below. Hearing your thoughts is why I wrote this short blog post this morning.

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. You can share your opinions in the comment section below or by tweeting to @Ryan_Kantor. Thanks for reading!

‘The Dark Knight Rises’ Offers A Gripping Story, Gutsy Action, and Rich Social Commentary

Before I begin, I would like to send my thoughts and prayers to victims of the tragic movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado.

This is by no means a movie blog, and thus this post is far from a movie review–not to say this blog is foreign to a good movie review or two. However, as The Dark Knight Rises has grown beyond the confines of another summer blockbuster, I couldn’t help but write something about my new all-time favorite movie (I’ll warn you before any spoilers) .

I watched The Dark Knight Rises on opening night, and after becoming so engrossed that I subconsciously starting clapping after the National Anthem concluded during the scene in Heinz Field, I left the movie utterly blown away. It had it all: great action, a gripping story, a fantastic musical score, and rich social commentary. The social commentary was unexpected, but I found that I enjoyed a great deal.

Walking out of the movie with an ol’ pal, it was brought to my attention that Rush Limbaugh had earlier implied that Hollywood liberals named the villain of the movie “Bane,” as a  jab at the venture capital firm, Bain Capital, that was led by Mitt Romney in the 90s. In reality, “Bane”–the villain–was first created in 1993, rendering Rush laughably incorrect. I typically cringe when Rush is unfairly bashed, but he deserves whatever he gets for this gaffe. What makes it even more misinformed is that he should be applauding the movie for its subtle, but real poke at the Occupy Wall Street/hate the wealthy/class-warfare theme that has become pervasive in politics today.

After (here comes a minor spoiler) Bane takes over Gotham, he “turns it over to the people.” The lower socio-economic classes, including freed criminals, take violent control and put the extremely wealthy on sham trials for their “crimes.” Leaders of major companies are sent to freeze to death in the frozen city. As Catwoman makes another’s house/apartment her own, she remarks to her friend that this is in fact somebody’s home, to which her friend responds by saying “it’s everyone’s home.” This theme remains on display from the “bad guys” (and Catwoman who is both good and bad) throughout the movie (spoilers over). One bitter, liberal movie goer bashed the film, saying:

“In a barely-veiled attack on Occupy Wall Street, Bane attempts to win over Gotham’s populace by demonizing Wall Street and the superrich and promising to return power to the people.”

(The liberal blogger continued with his long list of complaints by deriding the fact that the police were framed in a positive light and by exclaiming how wrong it was that the terrorists–hailing from Uzbekistan–were most definitely Muslim. It’s a unintentionally funny read if you care to indulge yourself.)

So while the names may be similar, the sentiments between “Bane” and “Bain” philosophically oppose one another.

To connect the dots I reference what President Obama said in a recent speech, that business owners didn’t “build that,” referring to their own businesses. To avoid taking the President out of context, here’s a whole big segment of his speech from which some feel President Obama displayed his lack of respect for business owners and the private sector:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

So, while the villain, Bane, may share the name of Bain Capital, his political ideology couldn’t be more contrasted from that Bain Capital, Mitt Romney, and the American Right. Bane, his cronies, and Catwoman oppose the wealthy (spoiler coming). Bane and his army attack the stock market, kill business leaders, and plunder Wayne Enterprises, while Cat Woman overtly steals from the wealthy and details her frustrations with their fake concern at charity galas (spoiler over). The “bad guys” and Catwoman are the ones opposing the wealthy, while the billionaire is the hero and protagonist of the entire trilogy.

Who in the 2012 election opposes the wealthy and seeks to harm stock investors with higher capital gains rates? Conversely, who is the multimillionaire philanthropist who owned an empire that they didn’t manage for a few years (like Mitt Romney leaving management duties at Bain in ’99, Bruce Wayne maintained ownership, but didn’t manage Wayne Enterprises for the time span between the second and third movies)? Finally, whose ideology does this movie portray in a darker light? Now shouldn’t Rush be praising the movie, rather than calling it “The Dark Knight Lights Up” and attacking it for a coincidental name similarity?

I welcome you to share your thoughts on the social commentary from this phenomenal movie as well as President Obama quote with which I included in this blog post.

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. You can share your opinions in the comment section below or by tweeting to @Ryan_Kantor. Thanks for reading!

My Oh My, It’s Just Downright Scandalous: I Finally Discuss A Couple of President Obama’s Scandals

Interestingly enough, the most transparent and ethical administration in history has its fingers in a lot of unsavory pies.

In the January 2010 speech above, President Obama exclaimed he wouldn’t stop fighting to “rein in exploding deficits.” He also pledged to slice our deficit in half by the end of his first term. Has obviously has not met these promises. Rather, he fought the Republicans in Congress when they demanded spending cuts in exchange for the debt ceiling increase that he requested.

Of course, many logical people may legitimately perceive this as a disappointment rather than outright lie, however to conclude such about all the issues going on in the administration is not such an easy task.

One of the first Obama scandals to break into mainstream news was the Solydra loan guarantee and the company’s subsequent failure. In fact, the entire DOE Loan Guarantee Program now appears corrupt and troubled. The problem isn’t so much that the company failed and tax dollars were wasted (although that is bothersome), but the way the administration selected the companies to support with federal tax dollars. Standing in front of the Solyndra facility, Mitt Romney explained it better than I can:

An independent inspector general looked at this investment and concluded that the administration had steered money to friends and family – to campaign contributors. This building, this half a billion dollar taxpayer investment, represents a serious conflict of interest on the part of the president and his team.

It’s also a symbol of how the president thinks about free enterprise. Free enterprise to the president means taking money from the taxpayers and giving it freely to his friends.

Ok, but let’s chalk that up to an honest mistake and call the fact that the loan guarantees just so happened to go to campaign “bundlers” and donors a major coincidence, not wild corruption.

…And maybe it was in the spirit of fulfilling his promise to provide the most transparent administration in history that he revealed classified security information. You have probably heard that such information was leaked and both Republicans and some Democrats believe the Obama administration did so to bolster the president’s national security image. Of course, they deny it was their own doing. Israel is livid, as the leak including some of our ally’s security information regarding handling a potentially nuclear Iran.

Given their openness about security secrets, it is fascinating how well they’ve done to hide information regarding the very biggest scandal of the administration–The Fast and Furious gun running scandal. Attorney General Eric Holder is now on the verge of being held in contempt of Congress and is being called to resign. At least five Democrats will join Republicans in voting to hold the Attorney General in contempt (vote should be held on June 28th, same day as the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare). The President went so far as to use his executive privilege to shield some documents from being uncovered after Holder’s refusal to turn over the documents did not quell demands. This is only the first time that President Obama has used the privilege (Bush and Clinton used the privilege 14 and six times, respectively) and they argue that the information would jeopardize the safety of some agents. Others believe there is more to the story that is being hidden. There is much still unknown, but it seems odd that documents requested by Congress are well hidden while classified national security secrets are leaked.

I’m not so sure all of these scandals represent crookedness on the President’s behalf, but I do think it is enough to decry that he has failed in his promise to provide a transparent and ethical administration. Come to your own conclusions and please share in the comments!

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. You can share your opinions in the comment section below or by tweeting to @Ryan_Kantor. Thanks for reading!