
Columnist.
Job No. 1 for Congress, as I noted in a recent column, is repealing Obamacare. But cutting taxes is a close second.
Fast forward to 2017. The party that ran on a repeal platform now holds the White House and a majority in both houses of Congress. Surely the plug would finally be pulled on Obamacare. But no. In a vote that ignored the clear will of the American people, the Senate recently voted against taking the next step in undoing this damage.
"The present is getting better. The future, not at all." So begins a recent New York Times article about a Pew study that shows the public adopting a rather dim outlook.
One of the upsides to the internet? All that information. One of the downsides? All that information. Tons of it, spread all over the place.
With overall federal budget expanding steadily year after year, you'd think not one category of spending has had to suffer. Surely everything that can be funded has all the money it could want or need — and then some.
"The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets," Will Rogers once wrote. Given Washington's track record, it's hard to blame Rogers for being cynical.
Despite our many differences, Americans have always come together every Independence Day to celebrate our national birthday. Which is truly fitting. From the nation's beginnings, our leaders have warned that strength can be found only in unity.
In terms of lost jobs, the status quo costs nearly 1,000 jobs per day.
More than five months into the new Congress and the new administration, precious little draining has occurred. The delay in action is not only frustrating, it's expensive: With the promised reforms, the U.S. could have created as much as $5 billion per day in economic output. If nothing changes, the swamp will end up costing more than 2 million prospective jobs over the next decade.
"Pay no attention to that man behind that curtain!" The Wizard of Oz had a good reason for trying to distract Dorothy when his true identity was revealed in the 1939 classic film. The last thing he wanted was for her to figure how things really operated.
"The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets," Will Rogers once wrote. Given Washington's track record, it's hard to blame Rogers for being cynical. If President Trump gets his way, however, taxes could actually improve. One part of them, anyway: the estate, or "death" tax.
Chances are, you heard plenty about the latest terrorist attacks in Britain. But the chances that you heard about the most recent attack in Afghanistan — in which a suicide truck bomber set off his deadly payload in rush-hour traffic near the German embassy in Kabul — are much lower. Why?
When conservatives call for Congress to cut federal spending and shrink the size of government, they're often portrayed as heartless. On the contrary: We remember our heritage. We know there's actually nothing "progressive" at all about the nanny state. Indeed, it's regressive. It's a betrayal of our history as a nation built on self-reliance.
We're used to hearing politicians vow to cut spending. We're also used to them not following through.
You wouldn't think Al Gore and Donald Trump would have much to talk about, given their political divisions. Yet that's exactly why the former vice president recently got in touch with President Trump: to urge him not to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
Does anyone out there think higher education doesn't cost enough? Or that there are plenty of ideological points of view for students to choose from?
In his April 29 speech marking his first 100 days in office, President Trump touched on the subject of regulations only briefly. Indeed, it took up all of one sentence.
Throughout the presidential campaign, Trump supporters were asked what drew them to their preferred candidate. Time and again, they pointed to his "outsider" status. Fed up with conventional politicians, they decided to take a chance on someone different — someone likely to shake things up.
When you're a conservative, you have to develop a thick skin. You get used to hearing how heartless you are. How devoid of compassion. And why? Because you don't automatically support every government program that claims to help poor people. Why, you conservatives must hate poor people.
When a politician promises something that "holds the promise of changing the course of human history," we naturally assume it's typical overstatement. But when President Ronald Reagan said that on March 23, 1983, in reference to his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), he was exactly right.