Admirable Victory

After hours of negotiations and rising concerns nationwide, the Congress and President Obama reached an agreement to seal off the threat from a federal shutdown by settling upon a $38.5 billion cut in domestic spending for the coming fiscal year. And even as the media attempted to set him up for a dramatic failure, House Speaker John Boehner successfully outmaneuvered the Democratic ranks to push through a bill with far more cuts than formerly accepted by the opposing party. While the cuts do not yet do enough for budgetary remedies, they are a symbolic triumph of reason over ideology which stand to crush Democratic hopes in the coming days to further crucify the GOP's image.

(Photo credit goes to Liberalland.com)

Now, it must remain clear that the government did not rule a shutdown out entirely; rather they simply extended the deadline with additional cuts. Although this may draw the ire of spectator Tea Party members, it should really be greeted with praise because it shows that once more the GOP can cleverly extort cuts from the Senate and Whitehouse without damaging its image during a shutdown.

Few things can be stressed as more important, seeing as the media and most Democrats would love to point fingers at Republicans for their failures, yet now the party has pulled off a successive win that forces the Democrats to continue on the tips of their toes in the coming weeks as negotiations continue. Boehner's leadership effectively prevented a Democratic propaganda war from striking home, all the while circumventing attempts to keep the GOP as a party of no compromise.

That stated, the battle does not end with this victory. Members of the GOP must press forward and implement further cuts so as to defeat additional Democratic roadblocks to governmental reform. By continuing with this pattern of evasive grants, the Center-right will be able to dismantle unnecessary federal institutions without negatively impacting the well-being of its political status or general image.

Further, the events of Friday shoved Harry Reid and Barack Obama back into the spotlight, where they will likely be forced to answer to the shortcomings of their party in recent years. While Boehner's leadership threw off the portrait of self-interest which has for too long hung over the GOP mantle, it also made Reid's opposition appear childish, and Obama's even less convincing. Observers should remember his sudden embrace of the plans, which came only days after he categorically failed to endorse significant budgetary cuts. The president flip flopped, and the nation is watching.

As with all other conflicts, the battle for American prosperity is far from over, yet the remaining elements in play promise a stronger showing from conservatives and patriots in the rounds to come. If the president refuses to cooperate once more, then the government will be shutdown, but only after proving that the Republicans are not the one so gunning for it. Friday night's struggle was the stepping stone to further skirmishes in the vicious confrontation for American freedom.



John Lai

National Alliance Treasurer and Comptroller General

A Time for Leadership

March 11th is not just a precursor to the day of Irish pride; it is also the second month anniversary of the Republican Party taking control of the House of Representatives with a decisive majority as well as gaining a stronger minority in the Senate. And yet another commemoration is due to be mentioned here. Despite the railing on of most candidates on cutting the budget and instating tough measures to ensure everlasting fiscal discipline, the GOP has already began falling into the pattern established during the 1990s, when it swept to power following a wave of anger against President William Clinton.

(Photo credit is to Little Miss Attila Blog))

Thus far the Republican proposals for debt reduction have been weak at best. With a paltry 9 billion currently on the table, the figures go nowhere near the 61 billion promised by Majority Leader Eric Cantor, or the 500 billion considered by Senator Rand Paul. The leadership has argued that these menial deductions are the only way to prevent a government shutdown, yet some might try and consider if this truly is the case. All of the funds which have been set on the table for elimination tend to focus themselves heavily in the extended services areas of the national budget; excess spending which does not actually begin to dent the larger picture. In order to actually reach a federal cease of operations the GOP would need to cut in far deeper than their preliminary agenda states, and therefore the frozen condition of their ranks is irrational from all angles.

Currently the Democrats hold the Senate, yet this is not a time to be playing coy about the responsibilities of the lower house and its new leadership. If the left-wing refuses to cooperate, then the GOP should allow the government to shutdown temporarily in order to show the extent of Harry Reid's simple follies with the lives of the American people. Continuing this game of minor adjustments will only lead to the mounting problem of solidifying enough support in the long run to keep the reformers in office and their mission alive.

Speaker Boehner has made the rather flimsy argument that only the smaller cuts will garner Democratic backing in the upper house, yet this point is moot considering how easily they will (as they have done before) sway once the pressure valve is activated. In sampling, Barack Obama's strong personal case against the extension of tax cuts became nothing after he realized the standing unlikelihood of his success. So if the Democrats insist on blocking the larger deficit reduction bills, they should be brought out in the public over this betrayal of common sense, providing coverage with a strong probability of sinking their future electoral endeavors.

Personal sacrifice is never something that the people of America readily and happily embrace, but even the most adamant about protecting their immediate prosperity must eventually come to understand that the current levels of debt are unsustainable, making prudent fiscal reactions a definitive cornerstone to national recovery, even if this means changes to the federal retirement system. Rather than voting for reformers and then complaining about the drastic measures they provide, Americans should be willing to make a decision to give away part of their individual well-being for the benefit of future generations. The burden may be heavier than most ideal, yet the outcome is better long-term.

Republicans now have only two possible outcomes to their efforts: honest success or political failure. The latter has been tried time and again to almost uniformly inadequate results, and so only the first remains viable. History is watching their choices in this troubled era, and one can only hope they do not cave to the status quo along the way.



Jason O'Grady

National Alliance Vice President for Economic Policy

Cut NPR--not PBS

Republicans have gotten giddy with their new chance at Washington governing and understandably so, yet with leadership comes the reality of sacrifice, and the individual who holds the purse strings must also be ready to command a degree of professional restraint rather than arbitrarily calling down orders of change because of position. It cannot be said that the budget needs no cutting, yet silencing the voice of a beneficial program which has historically been a tremendous aid to children is not prudent in the long term scenario of American prosperity.

National Public Radio has existed now on forty-one years, yet the results have been at best, disappointing. Poor broadcasts, little reliability, and questionable impartiality are all marks of a weak and ineffective news system, making the desire to cut funding for it more rational as a pursuit. Worldwide the factors remain similar, and one might point to only the fleeting successes of the BBC, which at best lives on because of intensified government intervention.

Alongside this however, the prospect of eliminating the Public Broadcasting System is depressing at best because it cuts off a viable source of positive learning and entertainment for the average American schoolchild. From the days of Mr. Rogers to the beneficial programs of the modern day, PBS is a vital aspect to child learning which contrasts to the more mindless content of Nickelodeon or Cartoon Network that now propagates cable. The station's broadcasts also include useful programs regarding education and learning enforcement which would likely go out of business without the support of the taxpayers in America and the federal direction that it presently enjoys.

Americans have already come to the reality that cutting the budget is necessary, yet this is one area inside of which deductions would be negative to the future development of the younger generations in America. Cuts need to be focused on wasteful spending that has no foreseeable benefit to the coming generations and on departments which push more papers than provide for the public good. At the end of the day, what works well in society and more importantly that which has its sources in the government must be kept for the welfare of the people. Eradicating tenets that build up our country as a whole  should be last on the list of trimming, even in desperate times, as the cost of their vanishing cannot be easily measured or recovered during the short term.

Conservatives deserve credit for trying, yet there remain some untouchable regions which are best left to serve the public.




Cate Ashton

National Alliance Vice President for Domestic Issues

How to Fix the Budget Deficit

Even the most optimistic observers have to admit that America's present budget deficit is both an unsustainable and irresponsible creation of governments unwatched and unregulated by voters in the past 30 years. With national debt at a staggering $13.4 trillion, even the least engaged should wonder at just how further generations are expected to deal with the overwhelming challenge of negative intake versus spending for the depleted coffers of Washington.

Raising taxes is always a possibility, but one that hardly guarantees real change. Essentially Congress would need to raise income tax rates to 15% at the minimum, driving families into further destitution while failing to fully secure a change in revenue. And of course there is no mandate forcing Congress to use those taxes for the budget deficit; they might easily add it to their own means of extorting earmarks or championing district spending projects.

No, while taxes are an option, they aren't the first factor of the equation which we must consider. The real solution to America's troubling financial instability is the dramatic cutting of spending, across the board, to foster a steadily decreasing budget issue. Most figures show that the HHS Department and Social Security make up a massive majority of the total spending in America, trailed only slightly by the Department of Defense. These programs all promise good intentions, yet at east small fractions of their total cost could be eliminated in order to fix our revenue and spending dilemmas.

Initially, the closure of unneeded military installations in Europe would be a start for the Department of Defense. Several positions are generally unnecessary, and so shutting them down would benefit the country. In fact, transferring stationed troops to the border of Mexico would be enough to combat the rising drug problem between our countries, which could help eliminate casualties and save money from the largely less than stellar DEA. To be clear, no funding should be cut from the troops themselves, yet many of these bases are simply a drag on our budget clarity.

Some smaller alternatives also exist. The Department of Commerce has turned into a useless organization that makes plenty of briefs and presentations yet hardly has a beneficial impact on our nation's economy. Thus I would move to propose that Congress pass a 5-year mandate on the agency, allowing workers time to gain new employment or even start their own companies before its dissolving. In branching off of this, the departments of labor, personnel management, housing, environmental protection, and homeland security should all face similar mandates, thus cutting preliminary articles down to a more realistic budget condition.

Pushing forward, Congress must also make the hard decision of cutting parts of social security and Medicare coverage. As my colleague Ayla Samadi noted in her article Long-term Security, the government has a duty to create an umbrella factor for both those reaching retirement age and citizens of lower income levels in order to prevent a dramatic fallout from lack of support. Yet at the same time, the middle class should be transferred into 401K savings plans, which, while insecure in their own way, will draw off a huge section of the budget deficit by eliminating it largest spending target.

Finally, the government should cut the proposed healthcare plan of the Obama Administration, which promises to only add more jeopardy to our financial future, and certainly that of our children.

Difficult choices often seem like infectious diseases to the average politician; sending them running fear if one crosses their path. The truth is, we cannot continue to deceive ourselves over their dramatic issue of trust and financial security. Only a decisive move to curb spending will allow us to continue transferring prosperity to the generations to come, and it is the government's duty to do so.


John Lai

National Alliance Treasurer and Comptroller General

Keep the Cuts

It appears almost entirely obvious that the Obama Administration is going to urge Democrats in the House of Representatives to extend only the middle class portions of the Bush Tax Cuts, allowing those for higher earning Americans to die away in January 2011. While the National Alliance Foundation respects the desire for each president to impose their ideological beliefs on the nation, this does not justify the insensitive and reckless decision to change the tax code in th heart of a national recession.

Whether one agrees that the current system is fair or grossly not so, it is irresponsible to radically shift the structure on which our market economy is presently based. On the first tier, the move is hypocritical seeing how the president has campaigned against the tax cuts "only for the richest 2% of America." In fact, the Bush system did cut taxes on the poor and middle class, albeit not as voluminously owing to the lesser incomes of these individuals. Since then, the economy has grown considerably, only halted by poor regulations for financial institutions and of the course the two Middle eastern wars.

Perhaps more crucial however is the support which those cuts give to our economic state as a nation. Hold anti-corporate views or not, but our present globalist structure of trade is fused with powerful companies, not simply government institutions or the middle class. Cutting  that line of support to the companies which supply most American  jobs will not move the economy away from its recession, but simply bring it to a damage laden standstill. If one considers the tax cuts which will expire, for individuals who have income of more than $250,000 per year, they clearly do not account for most small business owners. Even a small cafe, independently owned, will bring in close to $300,000 each year, losing out on the tax benefits.

At its core, our economy is remaining structured because of the very tax cuts made in the early 2000s. Severing them as a means of growth will not help stem a movement towards exiting our receding markets; instead exacerbating the issue.

Ideology may drive politicians as they campaign for power, but responsibility must come before all else once they have ascended to it. Modifying the tax cuts is a decision which will invariably affect the lives of countless American college graduates and business owners tremendously, so it must be done in a calculated and wise manner. Maintaining the present cuts is the only way to accomplish this, and the most effective manner in which to protect our nation's economy.

John Lai

National Alliance Treasurer and Comptroller General

Long-term Security

Not an election cycle goes by without voters hearing the vehement rantings concerning changes to America's debt-laden system of retirement security from both challengers and incumbents in the democratic process. There are cries of instability, injustice, and the unfairness to seniors which both the plan's current state and its recommended improvements seem inevitably bundled with. Despite the flashy and divisive media points which these meandering arguments can stir up, they almost universally miss the centrist and pro-American mission of reforming and revamping the fundamentals of the Social Security System. 

Contrary to the popular talking point of the center-leftists, stabilizing the retirement system is actually an incredibly secure and generally risk free process that can be accomplished through a one time dedication to cooperation within both houses of Congress. 

In order to effectively reform Social Security, the National Alliance Party proposes a three factor process. First, Congress must act to create an umbrella organization for all current Social Security participants over the age of 50. This net will transfer all the retiree funds to a secondary agency for a 40-year mandate of continued  service after these Americans choose to cease working. As the years pass and these citizens retire, they will not be affected by an immediate burden of funding their own retirement if their careers were not adequately successful enough.  By insisting on securing the future of seniors in our country, the government can avoid unnecessary political bloodshed from the older crowd in forthcoming elections. 

Next on the government's plate would be legislation to establish a safety net for the lower half of the impoverished American population. Using basic logic, the poorer and likely the less educated people of this nation should not be trusted with their own retirement funds, as a simple investment mistake could devastate them. In this manner, even the most vulnerable financially would be able to avoid the potential trap of poor decisions with what they have been entrusted with in life. 

It might seem so far as if this system would  not change the sagging weights of the current retirement agency, but its crowning piece is yet to come. Under this more ideal proposal, the government would transfer retirement accounts for the middle class to solidly based 401k investment securities. Instead of handing money to the potentially reckless, Congress could secure people's funds within nearly impenetrable savings accounts while removing the insane burden which is Social Security from the shoulders of future American taxpayers. 

Realistically, America has few other choices when dealing with this issue. As a nation with innumerable foreign and national security interests, we can hardly afford to cut the defense budget out of convenience to bring in more supportive revenue. A mass tax levy might work, but Americans would hardly stand for it at the polling booths, and we do not have enough graduates starting their own companies which may be targeted for more public funds.

In the 21st Century, it is the duty of every elected official and the people whom they represent to make sacrifices for the good of the future. Social Security might have sounded fine in promotion, but in practice it has become a terrible burden which threatens to cripple out economy in the relatively near future. But despite its menace, a series of tough and unrelenting steps can dramatically turn the tide for the good of the people. This is not about politics; it must be about responsibility.

Ayla Samadi

National Alliance Vice President for Domestic Affairs