‘Leading from Behind’

In a New Yorker piece, Ryan Lizza describes how President Obama has adjusted his foreign policy to deal with the reality in the Middle East. The last paragraph, describing the president’s Libya policy, deserves attention:

Nonetheless, Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine. One of his advisers described the President’s actions in Libya as “leading from behind.” That’s not a slogan designed for signs at the 2012 Democratic Convention, but it does accurately describe the balance that Obama now seems to be finding. It’s a different definition of leadership than America is known for, and it comes from two unspoken beliefs: that the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world. Pursuing our interests and spreading our ideals thus requires stealth and modesty as well as military strength. “It’s so at odds with the John Wayne expectation for what America is in the world,” the adviser said. “But it’s necessary for shepherding us through this phase.”

I’m trying to think of another example when someone claimed to be a leader by hiding his/her views in fear of how others might react. It’s difficult to call that leadership.

Mission Creep in Libya, Regime Change in Yemen, Inaction in Syria

John Bolton called out the president last week, suggesting that in Libya, “Barack Obama has set himself up for massive strategic failure.” Mitt Romney made a similar criticism. The news that the president has authorized drone attacks in Libya indeed suggests that the mission has expanded beyond the president’s initial explained version.

In Yemen, it appears that regime change will occur, as President Saleh has reportedly agreed to step down. The U.S. needs to ensure a continued partnership with Yemen in combating terrorists.

Meanwhile, violence has increased in Syria, in what has become a very sad situation. President Obama has condemned the violence, but has seemingly done little more. It appears he reserves his toughest talk for political opponents like Paul Ryan rather than for brutal regime’s like Syria’s.

Reminder: The Rich Alone Can’t Pay for Our Government

Since the President has taken the class warfare position in the budget discussion by pretending that taxing the rich can pay for the large government that he claims we need in order to prosper, here is a nice reminder from the WSJ today about where the most taxable income is. If you think President Obama is correct that we can dig out of this hole by mostly taxing the rich, you need to read this:

Consider the Internal Revenue Service’s income tax statistics for 2008, the latest year for which data are available. The top 1% of taxpayers—those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000—paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the “millionaires and billionaires” Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.

Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That’s five times Mr. Obama’s 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95%.

Try the same experiment in 2005, when there were more revenues after the Bush tax cuts, and there still wasn’t enough income to tax at the top to pay for our liabilities. Where is the taxable income? Take a look at the middle portion of the graph in the WSJ story, otherwise known as the middle class.

But President Obama only wants to tax the rich, right? Not so fast, as the WSJ reminds us. The President is proposing limiting tax deductions that would hit the middle class hard. Unlike Congressman Ryan’s plan, passed in the House at the end of last week, President Obama’s wouldn’t lower overall tax rates to accompany those deduction reforms.

The President wants to play class warfare, but his proposal is more about getting re-elected than actually solving our serious problems. And with S&P cutting its outlook for America’s credit rating, we can’t afford class warfare that promotes unrealistic solutions.

President Obama: Tax Increases Will Preserve America’s Greatness

I only had a chance to read the president’s budget speech today, but maybe it sounded better than it looks on paper. Before considering it, however, I want to point to the recent words of another politician:

Our nation was founded on the basis of God-given rights and individual liberty. The genius of our Founding Fathers’ vision was rooted in their recognition that more often than not, government was something to fear. Government necessarily limited individual freedom, and therefore, government itself must be limited; its potential for growth, highly constrained.

…

America became a land of unlimited opportunity because we were a nation of self-reliant people. Hard work was valued, personal responsibility expected, and success was celebrated, not demonized. I grew up in that America.

That politician is new Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson. Now consider what President Obama said today after recognizing “a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government”:

Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us. “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.

For much of the last century, our nation found a way to afford these investments and priorities with the taxes paid by its citizens. As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally born a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate. This is not because we begrudge those who’ve done well – we rightly celebrate their success. Rather, it is a basic reflection of our belief that those who have benefitted most from our way of life can afford to give a bit more back.

In Senator Johnson’s America, we have thrived because we are “a nation of self-reliant people” who believe that “government itself must be limited.” In the president’s America, however, “we would not be a great country without those [entitlement] commitments”, and we believe “that those who have benefitted most from our way of life can afford to give a bit more back.” Quite a contrast, and that contrast is the biggest takeaway from this speech.

If you’re looking for specific budget policy proposals in the president’s speech, don’t bother. His plan is to cut unspecified defense spending and to raise taxes on “the rich.” It’s tax cuts, according to the president, that have put us in this hole. Said the president:

To give you an idea of how much damage [these tax cuts] caused to our national checkbook, consider this: in the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years.

If only it were so simple. The president wants us to believe that a few budget cuts around the edges and tax increases on only the most wealthy will put us back on a path to prosperity. Once again, take a look at how high tax rates would have to be in the future to pay for our entitlement liabilities alone. It couldn’t be more clear that tax increases without entitlement reform are not going to pay off our debt.

But not only is the president promising to protect the entitlement programs as they are with proposals that would obviously do no such thing, he’s suggesting that America cannot succeed with a smaller government. As he said, we wouldn’t be a great nation without our entitlement commitments and without a government that will “invest in medical research and clean energy technology … in new roads and airports and broadband access … in education and job training … [and] will do what we need to compete and we will win the future.”

But history has shown this country can do quite well without such an involved government. We don’t need the government to be as vast and powerful as it is to succeed. We’re not in a rut because our government isn’t doing enough, but rather because it is doing too much. That is the debate to which President Obama contributed today, and is the one we’ll be having for a while.

Tax Increases Are Not the Solution to Budget Woes

Fresh off a budget deal that barely makes a dent in the deficit, President Obama will reportedly make the case on Wednesday for tax increases. The response should be a resounding rejection of such a proposal. As Jim Geraghty reminds us, despite the sluggish economy, the government has already been asking for and taking more money.

State and local governments have been passing tax and fee increases left and right. Gas and food prices are rapidly increasing. We’re paying more to support the growing government and its policies.

While many people and businesses have had to tighten their belts in this tough economy, the government has clamored over minuscule budget cuts and expects everyone else to pay more. That’s the bottom line.

Congressman Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity

Congressman Ryan should be commended for putting forth the Path to Prosperity. Whether or not you agree with his proposals, you have to respect his efforts and courage. The issues that Congressman Ryan is tackling are complicated and contentious, particularly entitlement spending. Let’s look at the basic numbers of the plan first:

$6.2 trillion — Amount of spending cuts proposed relative to President Obama’s 2012 budget request.

$5.8 trillion — Amount of spending cuts proposed relative to the current CBO baseline.

2008 — Ryan’s plan would bring non-security discretionary spending to below 2008 levels (pre-stimulus, pre-bailout, pre-Obama).

20 percent — Target spending levels (as a percentage of GDP).

$4.4 trillion — Total deficit reduction over 10 years called for under the plan, compared to $4 trillion under Bowles-Simpson and just $1.1 trillion under Obama’s 2012 budget.

$4.7 trillion — Total debt reduction relative to Obama’s budget.

$178 billion — Amount of saving achieved in the Defense Department budget, per the recommendations of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, $100 billion of which would be reinvested, the rest used to reduce the deficit.

$750 billion — Total savings achieved through Medicaid reform, in the form of block grants to states, giving governors greater flexibility in their budgets.

2022 — Year that proposed Medicare reforms would take effect.

25 percent — The top tax rate proposed for both individuals and companies.

18-19 percent — Target revenue levels (as a percentage of GDP), in keeping with historic average levels.

$800 billion — Total amount of tax increases eliminated by repealing Obamacare.

1 million — Private-sector jobs created over the next year.

4 percent — Projected unemployment rate by 2015.

$1.5 trillion — Projected growth in real GDP over the next decade.

$1.1 trillion — Estimate increase in wages over 10 years, yielding an average increase in income of $1,000 per year for each American family.

10 percent — Proposed reduction to the federal workforce over the next three years.

$120 trillion — Total debt reduction by 2050 relative to Obama’s budget.

Keith Hennessey compares Congressman Ryan’s and President Obama’s budget proposals here. The CBO presents a long-term analysis of the plan here. Of course, one could dispute the assumptions used to determine the numbers, like in this attempt here. There is plenty to discuss and debate, but at least Congressman Ryan’s plan gives us a starting point.

The Path to Prosperity attempts to reduce the government’s liabilities so that it doesn’t end up further in debt. In the case of Medicare, we can simply cut spending for benefits like ObamaCare does, or we can reform Medicare to reduce government’s responsibility in a way that prevents seniors from losing the same benefits. The Path to Prosperity proposes to do the latter with its premium assistance plan in a more open market, and by incrementally increasing the eligibility age. Whether the plan would work as intended is certainly debatable.

What the proposal could use more of are specific reforms for Medicare physician payments and for Social Security. That said, this is a great starting point for the debate over our fiscal future.

What’s Going on in Yemen

Dexter Filkins reports on the protests in Yemen and what is at stake. Read the whole piece.

It was also reported a few days ago that the Obama administration has shifted positions in Yemen to support regime change. The situation there is complicated by Yemen’s role in helping the U.S. combat terrorists:

Washington has long had a wary relationship of mutual dependence with Mr. Saleh. The United States has provided weapons, and the Yemeni leader has allowed the United States military and the C.I.A. to strike at Qaeda strongholds. The State Department cables released by WikiLeaks gave a close-up view of that uneasy interdependence: Mr. Saleh told Gen. David H. Petraeus, then the American commander in the Middle East, that the United States could continue missile strikes against Al Qaeda as long as the fiction was maintained that Yemen was conducting them.

…

For Washington, the key to his departure would be arranging a transfer of power that would enable the counterterrorism operation in Yemen to continue.

It’s not clear how the administration will handle this and why, as President Obama has been inconsistent and contradictory in explaining his guiding principles for intervention.

Wisconsin Judicial Election Still Unclear and California Advances Card Check

Wisconsin’s important judicial election, which seemed more like a November one than an April one, appears to be headed for a recount. While JoAnne Kloppenburg may shift the court’s balance in opposition to the state’s new union law, John Hinderaker questions whether a victory for her would have any effect on the labor law.

While several states have been considering similar labor laws to Wisconsin’s, California has decided to move the other direction by passing card check in the state senate.

Ohio Passes Union Bill As Wisconsin Approaches Judicial Election

While we won’t know the fate of Wisconsin’s union law until after the judicial election this week, Ohio has already signed its bill into law. Of course, opponents of the Ohio law aren’t going quietly either. There is now an opposition effort to have a referendum of the new law in November.

Wisconsin Judicial Election Could Decide Union Law

John Fund has the details of how Wisconsin unions are trying to replace a judge with one that would swing the court’s majority in the union’s favor as the state’s new union law is challenged. Unions must be aware of what is at stake:

Union officials recognize what can happen if dues payments become voluntary. Robert Chanin, who was general counsel of the National Education Association from 1968 to 2009, said in a U.S. District Court oral argument in 1978 that “it is well-recognized that if you take away the mechanism of payroll deduction, you won’t collect a penny from these people, and it has nothing to do with voluntary or involuntary. I think it has to do with the nature of the beast, and the beasts who are our teachers . . . simply don’t come up with the money regardless of the purpose.”

There is evidence to back up his fears. In 2001, Utah made the collection of payments to union political funds optional, and nearly 95% of public school teachers opted not to pay. In 2005, Indiana GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels limited collective-bargaining rights for public employees, and today only 5% of state employees pay union dues.

You know how they say elections have consequences? This one in Wisconsin will have some very significant consequences. Wisconsin voters have every incentive to make themselves heard.