Mike Adams - Bankrupt State University

Many of my friends and readers are disheartened by recent cultural and political trends. Many blame our universities and wonder whether we can ever restore sanity in our nation, given that the enemy seems to control the modern university. They see no chance to win in the war of ideas as long as they are forced to support the public university and, therefore, forced to fund a war against their own cherished values.

But I know something they don't know. The public university that has declined so steadily in recent years will cease to exist in just a few short decades. The moral bankruptcy we have seen over the last twenty years is about to be followed by another sort of bankruptcy. Before long, many of the universities that have betrayed taxpayers and alumni will be forced out of business. It will happen for the following reasons:

1. Federal funding reductions. LBJ got us deeply entrenched in the business of federal funding for institutions of higher education. When he did, tuition began to skyrocket. More recently, the federal government has gotten us deeply entrenched in the business of individual student loans. This has had the same effect. When a lot of people are able to borrow a lot of money to purchase goods or services, the effect on the price of those goods and services is dramatic. Supply and demand is not a rule; it is a law.
   
   State university administrators seized upon the increased demand for higher education by raising tuition. This was done for three reasons: a) because they could, b) because they wanted to give themselves raises, and c) because they /wanted to hire associate and assistant administrators to do their work for them.
   
   Now, the federal deficit is spinning out of control. As a result, the federal government will soon have to cut aid to state universities. This will confront administrators with this important decision: will they a) cut administrative spending, or b) raise tuition? The answer will be "b."
2. Student loan bubble. People are easily enticed into taking the bait when offered unlimited funds to pursue education. This applies to those who are not qualified to attend college at all. (Think about the housing bubble for just a moment). As tuition continues to rise, many more students who enroll will figure out that they have been duped long before they graduate. The universities have lied to them during recruitment. Departments in the social sciences and other disciplines have betrayed them by exaggerating the pay scale and availability of jobs they could likely expect upon graduation. These realizations will result in a massive upswing in the dropout rate over the next few years. These dropouts are many times more likely to default on their college loans than students who graduate.
   
   When the whole college loan industry collapses, people will actually have to pay for school as they go. That will result in many empty seats in many college classrooms. Universities will have to make up the difference by turning to alumni donors.
3. Declining donations. Consider the following scenario: just two weeks ago, a fraternity of 80 men was ejected from a public university campus. They were investigated for hazing but then exonerated. They were also investigated for an alcohol violation that was so minor that police declined to arrest anyone. They were found to be guilty of only one offense, which was dubbed "failure to cooperate with the investigation." This was another way of saying the university thought but could not prove they were guilty because they refused to confess. At the end of the day, the 80-man fraternity was banned from campus for three years.
   
   This real life incident will have two real life repercussions: a) the administrator who led the investigation will be promoted for expelling a politically incorrect fraternity (one of their flags has a Confederate symbol embedded within it). b) 80 future alumni will respond to the administrative overreach by refusing to donate for the rest of their adult lives.

This issue is serious. As the university administration has grown, it has assumed more control over the lives of students. In recent years, students have been prosecuted with increasing frequency for increasingly petty offenses with drastically decreasing respect for their due process rights. This includes petty prosecutions for speech code violations that amount to stripping students of the right to participate in the free exchange of ideas - the very reason many came to college in the first place. Is anyone foolish enough to believe this will have no effect on their willingness to donate?

The army of administrators that grew in the 1990s as a result of generous federal funding and the explosion in student loans will soon have to beg in order to retain their positions. Alumni will wisely apply the norm of reciprocity by exercising their power over these overpaid and underworked administrators who once practiced authoritarianism on them. They will wisely withhold donations and instead focus on paying their entirely-too-high student loan payments.

For all of these reasons, the public universities will eventually go bankrupt. And that is good news for a nation that is going morally bankrupt in the shadow of the ivory tower. They had a good thing going but the party is close to being over. The hangover will soon begin.

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - I Am Not Stoned - Sobering Realities For Taxpayers On The Road To Legalizing Marijuana

Pot fans got what they wanted in Colorado: they finally convinced voters there to support the legalization of “recreational marijuana.” It’s seen as a huge victory for those who support the powers of the individual states, and a great example of “federalism” in action. But who is considering the burden of all of this on the American taxpayer?

Before I go further, let me be clear: I have never in my entire life consumed marijuana. When I was a kid I was out of step with my peers on this, but I’ve just never been interested in “trying it,” and that’s still true today.

Secondly, I’m quite open to the idea that, as a substance, “cannabis” has value. The “hemp” fibers of the plant can clearly serve a variety of industrial purposes – people have been using it to make rope for years, and I own a wallet made from hemp (and my wallet “works” just fine).

There also may be medicinal values in the substance of “marijuana.” But when an individual state simply says “forget the feds, we’re legalizing it,” the state sets in motion a pattern of legal, administrative, and law enforcement chaos-and the already beaten-down American taxpayer ends up saddled with even more expenses and debts.

Consider how California began its “pot journey.” Voters there passed the “Compassionate Use Act of 1996” (commonly known as “Proposition 215”), a ballot proposition that was to allow marijuana consumption “for medicinal purposes” only. And the whole idea was sold to voters under the guise of “compassion”- you wouldn’t want somebody to suffer without their medicine, now would you?

When California voters said “yes” to medical marijuana, the next question from the government was “how do we give it to them?” It’s still illegal at the federal level, so it’s not like Californians could simply stock pot at the pharmacy, where all the legal medicines are sold. So California had to put together its own means of growing, harvesting, selling, and distributing pot.

This required the California legislators to spend taxpayer money legislating a new “Medical Marijuana Program.” After years of tinkering with legislative attempts, and making amendments, and facing threats of vetoes by former Republican Governor Pete Wilson back in the late 90’s, the California legislature finally found a friend in Democrat Governor Gray Davis, and in 2003 the state passed and began implementing the California “Medical Marijuana Program Act.” The state began hiring more government employees to administrate the new pot infrastructure program, and then began mandating to individual counties and cities that they acquiesce –and all of this was done at taxpayer expense.

Then, two politically “conservative” regions of California – San Bernardino County and San Diego County-refused to implement the new pot program. So the state government sued the two counties, and the counties put their Attorneys to work to defend them against the state. And this ended in a decision at the California State Supreme Court that determined that the counties had to do what the state told them to do with the pot shops – and all of this cost taxpayers lots of money.

By this time, cities and counties all over California began realizing that they had no choice – they had to allow for “medical pot shops.” So the elected lawmakers in the city and county governments began asking their city and county Attorneys “how do we establish zoning laws for the pot shops? Should pot shops be allowed near schools or shopping malls? Should we try to keep them away from kids? If we restrict the hours of operation for the pot shops, will we still be in compliance with the state mandates?” This consumed lots of “man hours,” required lots of professional expertise and input – and it was all done at taxpayer expense.

California’s legal, administrative, and law enforcement chaos hasn’t been confined by its borders- there have been plenty of confrontations with federal authorities along the way as well. With “medical pot” being the law of the land in California, law enforcement agencies and courts are put in a bind: they can enforce and uphold federal law on pot, or they can enforce and uphold state law on pot, but they can’t do both because the state and federal law is on conflict.

During the Clinton presidency, the federal government was mostly “hands off” with California’s medical marijuana efforts. As the program began to unfold, the Bush Administration was more inclined towards intervention.

The Obama Administration began on a note of tolerance with medical marijuana in California, but within a couple of years Attorney General Eric Holder was issuing warnings about the issue being inadequately regulated, and the various U.S. Attorney’s offices in California have initiated a variety of “probes” and “investigations” – all of which have cost lots of taxpayer dollars.

Pot lovers are passionate about their drug of choice, and will say just about anything to try and legitimize it. The argument starts over “medicinal pot,” but the end goal around the country is what Colorado got: legalized recreational pot. “Let’s treat it just like alcohol,” the reasoning goes, “legalize it, then regulate it, then tax it.”

But it’s not “just like alcohol,” at the individual state level. Pot is still highly illegal under federal law, and multiple layers of federal bureaucracies and multiple federal agencies with lots of career governmental employees have a vested interest in keeping it illegal.

So good luck, Colorado. But beware in the other 49: trying to defy the feds over pot unleashes legal, administrative, and law enforcement chaos – and almost nobody is trying to safeguard the taxpayer in the midst of it all.

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - Even The Fed Doesn’t Believe It’ll Work

Breaking news: officials in our U.S. Federal Government do not know how to solve all our woes.

This actually shouldn’t be “news.” Leaders from none other than the Federal Reserve, itself, have repeatedly admitted this in recent months.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has admitted this multiple times, and in a variety of different contexts (a point I’ll review momentarily). But last Wednesday, the President and C.E.O. of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas reiterated this point himself, and his announcements have largely been ignored.

In a Speech before the Harvard Club of New York City, bank President Richard Foster publicly restated his opposition to the Fed’s recent decision to launch “QE3,” its third attempt in three years to use monetary policy to stimulate the economy. Foster began his speech noting that “with each program we undertake to venture further in that direction (in the direction of using monetary policy as stimulus), we are sailing deeper into uncharted waters. We are blessed at the Fed with sophisticated econometric models and superb analysts. We can easily conjure up plausible theories as to what we will do when it comes to our next tack or eventually reversing course. The truth, however, is that nobody on the committee, nor on our staffs at the Board of Governors and the 12 Banks, really knows what is holding back the economy.”

Later in the speech, Mr. Foster noted that our economy “is already flush with $1.6 trillion in excess private bank reserves owned by the banking sector and held by the 12 Federal Reserve Banks. Trillions more are sitting on the sidelines in corporate coffers. On top of all that, a significant amount of underemployed cash—or fuel for investment—is burning a hole in the pockets of money market funds and other non-depository financial operators. This begs the question: Why would the Fed provision to shovel billions in additional liquidity into the economy’s boiler when so much is presently lying fallow?”

The economy is being held back despite trillions of dollars “lying fallow,” and the highly educated experts at the Federal Reserve can’t figure out why. Mr. Foster deserves our thanks for being so truthful – yet we should all be concerned about his observations.

Of course, it was only three months ago when Chairman Ben Bernanke admitted that he had “no idea” why our economy is so “fragile.” This is the man who has overseen the lending of more than $3 trillion American taxpayer dollars to foreign banks; the rapid-fire acquisition of the former giant Merrill Lynch by the gargantuan Bank of America; the multi-billion dollar taxpayer bailout of Wall Street; and – although he craft legislation or sign bills in to law, he nonetheless supported the $800 billion “economic stimulus bill” from the Congress and the Obama Administration.

And after all that – and before the latest stimulus effort announced less than two weeks ago – the Fed Chairman nonetheless admits that he has “no idea” what is wrong with our economy.

The talent, econometric models, and superb analysts at the Federal Reserve notwithstanding, Americans of all stripes need to come to grips with some basic economic realities. If it is still a goal of our country to create wealth and opportunity for all, then we’ll have to start demanding that our government officials think and act differently.

For example, we will not have entrepreneurs once again using those “fallow trillions” to create new businesses and jobs in large quantities, until we demand that government stops bullying private enterprise. Despite the claims at the recent Democratic National Convention that President Obama “saved G.M” with government bailouts, last week General Motors announced that it wants to sever ties with our government. According to G.M. leadership, the restrictions on executive salaries that President Obama has forced upon the company have put G.M. at a competitive disadvantage with other car companies.

The fact that the Obama Administration would use an entire car company to satisfy its political agenda of cutting executive salaries, even at the expense of the company’s wellbeing, does not create a business-friendly environment. It conveys to entrepreneurs that President Obama’s agenda is preeminently important, and prosperity is secondary.

And did you hear about the Gallup organization? After publishing both political polling data and unemployment data that reflected poorly on the President, Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod engaged Gallup in a series of intimidating conversations demanding that Gallup change their methodologies. Gallup didn’t budge – and mysteriously found themselves targeted with a lawsuit from the Department of Justice lawsuit over an “unrelated issue.”

Americans must also demand that both Washington, and Wall Street, embrace the economic wisdom of Main Street. Most of us realize that, just as a drunken person cannot drink himself sober, no individual, household, nor organization can borrow and spend itself out of debt. This reality applies to our government, as well.

Americans deserve, and must demand, better.

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Lurita Doan - A President Who Can Say No

What Americans need in our next president isn’t complicated. Given our nation’s pressing problems, we just need a president capable of saying “NO”. The United States is, once again, at an important turning point, brought to the brink by Barack Obama’s profligate spending. In order to reverse the damage caused by 4 years of Obama’s left-leaning, entitlement-driven, anti-business policies, the nation needs a leader who is willing to stop the fiscal hemorrhaging and just say “no”.

If America is to continue on its path of greatness, continue to be a beacon to the rest of the world, we must get our financial expenditures under control and create more private sector jobs. That is going to require an individual capable of taking a tough stance against further indulgent government expenditures, a leader willing to say – “no”.

Unfortunately, the list of projects, policies, individuals and organizations to whom “NO” must be said is growing quite long.

Say “no” to America-bashing-- Americans deserve a president who believes that we are an exceptional nation, capable of achieving everything that is good and great. We deserve a president who acknowledges and appreciates the extraordinary contributions in education, defense, industry, medicine, technology and philanthropy that Americans have made to the world in the past 236 years.

But don’t stop there—

Small businesses, entrepreneurs, and job creators are already groaning from the weight of the many and new regulations Obama has initiated in the past three and a half years, so say “no” to the regulatory stranglehold that is stifling our nation’s entrepreneurs.

Say “no” to further bailouts and allow the free market to determine winners and losers-- Solyndra's mind-boggling profligacy, squandering $523 million in taxpayer money in less than two years and filing for bankruptcy protection, should be incentive enough to--

Say “no” to subsidies for absurdly expensive energy schemes that yield little and do nothing to reduce the price of gas at the pump for the average American.

Say “no” to ethanol subsidies and the $6 billion annual gift to the ethanol lobby.

Say “no to expanding entitlements, whether they be food stamps, social security, Obamacare or Medicaid—we can’t afford it.

Say “no” to raising the debt limit; a $16.394 trillion debt ceiling is quite high enough.

Say “no” to bloated federal spending; the federal budget has tripled in three years and that, too, is enough.

Say “no” to czars. With over 40 czars pre-empting and usurping the responsibilities and authorities of their Senate-confirmed doppelgangers, is it any wonder that there is no accountability and no spending discipline?

Say “no” to union pandering—and don’t blame FOX News for your problems when greedy union negotiators demand more and more.

Say no to environmental extremists, who seek to reduce, or shut down, the new production of oil and gas in the name of “greening” the planet and “sustainability”.

Say “no” to dodgy schemes that encourage voter fraud, even when those schemes are advanced by your Attorney General as a way to ensure your re-election.

Say “no” to legal posturing that gives known terrorists more rights than average Americans.

Say “no” to spending more time attending re-election fundraisers than working on America’s problems.

Say “no” to endless rounds of golf—and claiming that important work is getting done.

Say “no” to selecting advisors and appointees who are known tax dodgers and charlatans as czars and Cabinet Secretaries.

Say “no” to incivility in political discourse so that our congress and executive branch agencies can return to working together for the good of all Americans. Of course, leading by example would be an excellent start.

Of course, there are many other areas in which “no” might need to be said—I’m sure I’ve missed a few.

But, as we approach November-- and unemployment remains at historic high levels, as the deficit continues to escalate, as federal government bloat continues, as entitlements expand regardless of our ability to pay for them, and as many in Washington continue to delude themselves into thinking that they can kick the can of accountability down the road for a few more years—responsible Americans , getting ready to vote for the next president of the United States, need to ask themselves one question: how good is this guy a saying “no” and sticking to it?

Lurita Doan

Lurita Alexis Doan is an African American conservative commentator who writes about issues affecting the federal government.

Lurita has been involved in the business community through participation in many trade associations, membership in business organizations including the Young Entrepreneurs' Organization (now Entrepreneurs' Organization) and Young Presidents' Organization, and involvement on charitable community activities.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - Against The Grain: President Obama Out Of Step With American Sensibilities

Sensibility – the capacity for sensation or feeling; keen consciousness or awareness.

Sometimes dictionary definitions can seem vague or esoteric. So let me suggest that the word “sensibility” might also be described as one’s “gut instincts” about their experiences.

And it may also be the case that President Obama’s recent decline in the polls is not merely because unemployment is high, or because the cost of living is rising higher. It may be that some of President Obama’s own recently stated positions are violating the “gut instincts” that many Americans have about their own country.

Let’s start with the insurance industry mandates for abortion coverage, and the alleged “war on women.” When President Obama mandated in February that medical insurance companies provide coverage for abortion, sterilization and contraception, reaction was swift and visceral. Many religious organizations – most notably the Catholic Church – responded very negatively, and characterized the decision as a threat to religious freedom.

As presidential politics go, Mr. Obama’s mandate probably achieved its intended short-term goal: it successfully re-directed the national conversation away from issues surrounding the economy, the national debt, and a faltering foreign policy, and toward a discussion of abortion and religion. But the ways in which the conversation has devolved since its initial re-direction may not be playing to the President’s favor, and may now be contradicting Americans’ sensibilities about personal responsibility.

Most Americans do not share President Obama’s enthusiasm for abortion. But, fortunately, a majority of Americans still do not share the President’s support for economic entitlements either, nor are most of us as excited about government control over private businesses as he seems to be.

Yet the abortion enthusiasts who have run to the President’s defense in the last several weeks – most notably Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke, who we now know has a direct connection to former Obama Advisor Anita Dunn – have pushed a message of support for both abortion, and entitlements. “If somebody else doesn’t pay for my abortion and birth control,” Ms. Fluke is essentially telling us, then she is being “denied access” to healthcare – and this amounts to a “war on women.”

Americans are tiring of the “somebody else should pay for my stuff” attitude. In fact, there is a growing perception that the Obama entitlement culture is damaging our economy and our future, and the reality that President Obama would intertwine abortion and economic redistribution contradicts our gut instincts about how America should operate.

Another problem for the President may be his recent handling of the military. In the aftermath of the horrific news that a U.S. Marine allegedly massacred several civilians in Afghanistan, the American people have been treated to a barrage of conflicting information. The Marine had a “brain injury;” the Marine was “suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder;” he may have been “drunk,” and he was angry about another deployment. We’ve seen all these explanations emerge, with no clear comments from the President or his Administration.

Yet what we have seen and heard from the Administration has been worse than mere message mismanagement. The President and his Administration have exhibited a sense that they neither enthusiastically appreciate the men and women in uniform, nor do they trust them.

It started last Monday March 12th, while President Obama was being interviewed by a Denver television anchor. When asked about the massacre allegations, the President noted the horrific nature of the killings, but then went on to say of our troops that “you can’t help but be proud of them, generally..”

To be fair, the President is in an awful position. He commands the military, yet one that he commands now stands accused of heinous crimes.

Yet the sensibilities of most Americans regarding the military are such that we aren’t just “generally” proud of our troops. Our trust and respect for the men and women in uniform is a near-constant, and it is a rare instance when an individual solider fails to meet our expectations.

To make matters worse, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta paid a visit to Afghanistan days after the offense to address the troops and the Afghani government. But before American military personnel were permitted to enter the room where Secretary Panetta spoke, they were forced to disarm, and leave their weapons outside.

The Administration later noted that the reason for this was because there were Afghani troops in the room who were required to disarm, so therefore the U.S. troops needed to be treated equally with the Afghani’s.

Again, the Obama Administration appeared to be out of step with American gut instincts. While Americans trust the men and women of the military and regard them as superior to any other fighting force, the Obama Administration appears distrusting of the troops, and uncertain of the mission in Afghanistan.

Americans disagree vehemently on ideology and public policy. But, for better or worse, we still haven’t given up on the idea that collectively we are still a good country, and we try to live with a sense of personal responsibility.

President Obama has reminded us that his policies undermine personal responsibility, while advancing the cause of entitlement. His handling of the Afghanistan fiasco suggests that the nation which many of us believe is great, is perhaps for him, not so great after all.

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Paul Ryan - America Deserves A Better Path

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Lurita Doan - The Consequences of Federal Regulatory Overreach

Over the past ten years, Democrats have held a singular belief that almost all problems in America could be solved with more regulations and more oversight. Team Obama came to power and a Democrat-led congress immediately pushed through reams of new regulations. Hidden within thousands of pages of legislation for stimulus, financial regulatory reform, home mortgage reform and various small business jobs’ acts, were government regulations that are now strangling American entrepreneurship, American exceptionalism and American independence.

This perfect storm of increased regulations and increased oversight has had a ruinous effect. For example, during the Bush Administration, Congressman Henry Waxman often pummeled the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), demanding more oversight and more regulatory reviews in an unrealistic quest to find perfect, risk-free medications.

When Barack Obama became president, Democrat acolytes took over the FDA and implemented the strategy of excessive regulatory control that Waxman had advocated. And what was the effect?

New pharmaceutical development, once an American competitive edge, has slowed to a crawl and the nation is in danger of losing its leadership in new drug development. In 1996, the FDA approved approximately 45 new drugs—and the world clamored to buy American pharmaceuticals. Now, despite larger budgets, increased manpower and more sophisticated technology, the FDA approves only 20 new drugs each year.

Our competitive edge is eroding. And, in America, the entrepreneurs that once created the world’s most innovative products have been stymied. Inventors and investors worry that no new medical product, regardless of its effectiveness, can navigate the bizarre and expensive FDA path to approval. Americans can thank Henry Waxman for developing the strategy and they can thank Team Obama for the implementation.

The evidence of excessive federal regulation is everywhere and certainly not limited to the FDA. The Economist just ran a cover story, “Tangled Up In Green Tape” lambasting excessive and confusing, EPA regulations in the United States.

In the oil and gas industry, innovation and entrepreneurs discovered new and better ways to tap oil and gas resources that were once trapped and unrecoverable. Fracking, and other new technologies, all developed by private companies, gave our nation a new ability to recover natural gas and oil and production has boomed. But apparently, the added domestic energy and the jobs that have been created are in jeopardy as the Obama Administration starts to marshal fringe and environmental extremists, to reduce, or shut down the new production.

As a recent Wall Street Journal report noted, drilling permits are harder, more expensive and take longer to obtain, if at all. The regulatory clamp is strangling gas and oil production, and Team Obama hopes to tighten it still. Perhaps worst of all, Congressman Waxman and Congressman Markey, who apparently believe that gas prices in America are too low, have recently called for new taxes on oil and gas production and a national tax on carbon.

It seems that, having crippled Americans’ edge in the development of pharmaceuticals, Mr. Waxman and Mr. Obama now have moved on to do the same to domestic oil and gas producers.

For small businesses, the regulatory burden has become a killer. The United States was once one of the easiest places in the world to start a new business, and our culture of entrepreneurial energy was the envy of the world.

No longer.

Throughout America, small companies are struggling under the new, job-killing burdens imposed by the Obama Administration., which seems oblivious to the damage it has caused. Across the nation, new, start-up companies and entrepreneurs with the next big idea are finding it increasingly difficult to attract the capital needed to fund their ventures. Furthermore, the uncertainty that prevails when legislation is proposed, passed, challenged, and then, ultimately sent to the courts for resolution is bad for business.

Even young kids, budding entrepreneurs, are learning that setting up a simple lemonade stand requires government approvals, oversight, and permits.

The explosion in new, regulatory changes that have been pushed through by the Obama Administration are killing job growth and innovation. Sadly, the full crippling effect of these many regulations has not yet been felt. Week by week and month by month, more regulations are enforced that will further constrict our productive abilities.

Democrats and Team Obama seem to believe that more government influence and increased government interference is a preferable situation. They seem to think that all issues are improved and all problems can be made better only by government’s heavy hand.

Some may argue that not all regulations are destructive to our economy, and they’d be correct. But, the Obama Administration’subiquitous level of federal government involvement in almost every aspect of the lives of American citizens seems anti-democratic and certainly anti-liberty. Government overregulation and overreach is killing our economy and destroying the entrepreneurship that built our nation.

Have we not had enough?

I would like to suggest our government impose an immediate moratorium on any new regulations, and consider the damage being done to this great nation. We need to be encourage our job creators and reignite our entrepreneurial spirit.

Maybe, too, it is time for Mr. Obama to resist the most strident demands of those pushing for even more burdensome regulations from the government, and, instead go out and visit (providing the White House can locate one) a kid’s lemonade stand.

Mr. Obama could learn a lot by talking to the kid running it.

Lurita Doan

---

Lurita Alexis Doan is an African American conservative commentator who writes about issues affecting the federal government.

Lurita has been involved in the business community through participation in many trade associations, membership in business organizations including the Young Entrepreneurs' Organization (now Entrepreneurs' Organization) and Young Presidents' Organization, and involvement on charitable community activities.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---