Corie Whalen

On November 14th, the President of the United States went on national television and berated insurance companies for enforcing Obamacare as written. It has become politically inconvenient for Democrats who have to contend with reelection next year, that millions of Americans have had their insurance policies banned by Obamacare, despite the President’s oft repeated promise to the contrary.

Once again elevating politics over economic and logistical reality, King Obama decreed that insurance companies can suddenly UN-cancel the banned plans (even though Obamacare hasn’t been legislatively amended) and re-sell them. How dictatorial! But, there’s a catch. Insurers will only be allowed do this through 2015 – and don’t even know how it can be achieved. What company in their right mind would suddenly expend resources to sell in a market they’ve explicitly been told is illegal? Oh, right. None. Which is why Obama made the statement he did. The President went into his press conference fully aware that his purpose was to deflect blame and solve approximately zero problems. After all, the banning of low-cost catastrophic plans to induce stealth redistribution is the point Obamacare. To its advocates, replacing actual insurance that calculates for risk with expensive plans that contain unnecessary mandates is a feature, not a bug. Anyone pretending otherwise either doesn’t understand how Obamacare is supposed to work (and therefore shouldn’t have advocated for it), or is being intentionally dishonest in their sudden outrage.

Ultimately, the sad display we saw from the President on Thursday constitutes a desperate attempt to shift responsibility for the unmitigated disaster that is Obamacare away from politicians who knowingly lied to defend him as they face the wrath of their constituents. Conveniently, the new 2015 deadline for banning the insurance plans millions liked and depended on should be just enough time to give red and swing state Democratic Senators like Pryor (AR), Landrieu (LA), Hagan (NC), and Begich (AK) political cover – not to mention all of their colleagues in the House.

Keep in mind through all of this though, that the insurance companies certainly aren’t victims in this schadenfreude. They have been willing participants in a corporatist redistribution scheme that they stood to profit from through coercive plunder enacted by government fiat. What’s that saying about laying down with dogs and getting fleas? Congratulations, insurance companies. You’re getting the PR treatment you should have expected, and frankly, deserve.

As Allahpundit stated in a piece at Hot Air entitled, “Scapegoated insurers fire back at Obama over “administrative fix”: You’re not pinning this ObamaCare mess on us“:

“Don’t cry for these people, needless to say. They helped make ObamaCare happen. They were only too happy to see healthy young adults forced into buying their product by a constitutionally dubious mandate and to gouge healthy middle-class people with the new, more expensive plans required by the exchanges. They wouldn’t have partnered with the White House if this wasn’t a payday for them. But now they’re screwed twice over: Not only are Democrats trying to make them the fall guy for the cancellations, they’re looking at their payday melting down into red ink if they take Obama’s “advice” and re-create the old risk pool. Oh well. No honor among thieves.”

Perhaps the scapegoating of insurance companies by the White House will teach private industry that competing honestly in a free market is superior to the lecherous relationship between big government and big corporations in which the American people are victims. But I suppose that’s too optimistic an outlook given the circumstances. After all, I’m not convinced that Republicans even have a coherent response to all of this, and are likely to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, as they tend to.

As Erick Erickson accurately described, the Upton plan to let people keep their insurance is a trap that plays right into the hands of Democrats. I was for attempts to delay Obamacare – but the playing field has changed, and Republicans have to make Democrats own the disaster now that the exchanges have launched. Any GOP attempts to alter Obamacare at this juncture are likely to speed up the inevitable adverse selection, and give Democrats the political ammo they need to blame evil Republicans, defenders of the heartless insurance companies whose only motivation is to profit off the sick. Can’t you see the messaging campaign already?

There is a strong populist, anti-cronyism message that can be promoted extremely effectively in the wake of Obama’s ridiculously embarrassing declaration this week. I expect true free market advocates within the GOP to push that message well. But I do not trust House Republican leadership, with their history of valuing corporatism over competition. Congressman Fred Upton may have good intentions with his attempt to allow people to keep the plans that Obamacare banned.  But I agree with Erickson that it will go down as follows:

“First, understand that Upton is messaging legislation. It allows everyone in Congress to say they support people being able to keep their health care plans, but it lacks measures to force insurance companies to let people keep their plans. It is a paper tiger.

But Republicans are starting to pick up worried Democrat votes for the Upton legislation who feel they must stand for something with 2014 on the horizon.

So Upton will pass. It will be “bipartisan.”

Democrats, meanwhile, need to get Mary Landrieu and a host of other red state Democrats re-elected. The President’s law be damned, they want to save their Senate majority. Remember,Obamacare already has embedded in the law provisions bailing out insurance companies and the Democrats and Republicans have shown themselves perfectly comfortable bailing out businesses deemed “too big to fail” in the past. Insurance companies participating in the exchanges will be deemed “too big to fail” I guarantee. So the Democrats can hurt insurance companies and undermine their own exchanges, but the government will bail out the insurance companies affected under the terms of Obamacare as already written.

The House would send the Senate the Upton measure. The Senate Democrats will respond, “But Upton has not teeth. Landrieu has teeth.” The Senate will substitute Landrieu’s legislation for Upton’s, send it back to the House, and watch the GOP try to explain why they say they’re for letting people keep their health insurance plans, but will not actually force insurance companies to let people keep those plans.

Yet again, the GOP will be cast as the tool of insurance companies and Mary Landrieu as the savior of plans people already have. Republicans will cave. They’ll console themselves thinking Landrieu’s bill will undermine Obamacare and cause it to collapse.

Upton’s legislation by itself isn’t worth worrying about. But Upton passed with Landrieu’s bill still on the table gives the Democrats the offense back. Republicans will absolutely flub the response and, embarrassed, vote for Landrieu. If you don’t believe me, Fred Upton is open to Landrieu’s plan himself.”

Obama has literally handed Republicans a golden opportunity on a silver platter. Now is the time to promote serious free market alternatives to Obamacare, of which there are many. Whether you consider the Heritage plan, the Republican Study Committee’s American Health Care Reform Act, Congressman Price’s Empowering Patients First Act , or a host of others, there are options, and we can build a narrative surrounding real health care solutions as the midterm elections approach. Don’t screw this up in an attempt to appease corporatist elements, GOP. The American people are watching, and quite rightfully, judging harshly.

Originally posted at Generation Opportunity

Good news, bros and hos!  There’s a new ad campaign geared toward fulfilling your wildest government-funded fantasies! At the grammatically challenged DoYouGotInsurance.com, you can browse through a compelling selection of hard hitting pro-Obamacare ads, just like the classy and clearly not condescending one below.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the level Obamacare advocates have stooped to. They know that millennials are opting out of the expensive, creepy Obamacare exchanges in droves, and their desperation is showing. As a woman in her twenties, I can’t imagine this message resonating with any sane female, regardless of her political views. I’m sorry, but there is no young lady on earth who says to herself, “Wow, if only the government made me pay more for insurance before, I could’ve had access to ‘free’ birth control and fulfilled my dream of getting with a bunch of tequila-shot-wielding-bros!” Also, the use of the term “hot to trot” in the ad? Really? Disparagingly treating women like sex objects and encouraging government dependency? So totally empowering! Or something ….

I have to imagine that you won’t be seeing these sophisticated purveyors of “brosurance” make ads about recent news that Obamacare has actually banned the affordable insurance plans of over 3.5 million Americans and counting. After all, that’s a pretty devastating statistic considering only 50,000 people have allegedly signed up through the exchanges. But wait, there’s more! The official number we expect the White House to release soon will count individuals who have merely kept a plan in their online shopping cart. Yes, seriously. HealthCare.gov wasn’t operational when I tried out of curiosity to see if I could get a quote. If I had saved a plan to review later, the government would consider me enrolled in Obamacare? Really? Earth to the White House: Attempted research on a dysfunctional website doesn’t constitute someone purchasing your sub-par, corporatist product. After all, there are better options for insurance procurement – especially if you’re a young person.

Oh and additionally, as if the aforementioned ad that implies females are the are brain-dead sums of our lady parts isn’t bad enough, there’s this:

Yay systemic under-employment of college graduates! That’s so totally cool and fun! Just like living at home and being broke! Let’s foist MORE government burdens on top of the generation struggling under $1.2 trillion of their own student loan debt! You know, because Obamacare, its subsidies, and the $12o trillion we already face in unfunded government liabilities are just going to pay for themselves, apparently. But in all seriousness, less than half of college graduates are actually using their degree and the cost of higher education  is spiraling out of control. It’s hugely problematic – and more government sponsored generational theft to further destroy the middle class is far from the solution.

These ads, which treat millennials as if our intellect is equal to that of a farm animal’s, are so tone deaf that it’s not likely anyone will be persuaded by them to explore the Obamacare exchanges. However, if any young people actually look into it, they’ll likely find that their options are less attractive than they were prior to the law’s launch. This is because Obamacare is fundamentally not insurance, as it doesn’t calculate for a relatively healthy person’s low risk.

Unfortunately, it’s clear that Obamacare is yet another iteration of the government’s longstanding war on youth. It transfers resources from young people already struggling in a tough economy to older, wealthier Americans. Because of how the law is structured, current young people stand to gain nothing from this ill-conceived program – even in the long-run. As health care policy analyst Chris Conover explained at Forbes in his appropriately titled piece, “No, Obamacare Is Not A Good Deal For Young People In The Long Run, Not Even Close,”

“Obamacare is not a good lifetime deal even for people as old as 30. For 18 year olds, Obamacare essentially is imposing a tax of 18.3% on the premiums they would otherwise pay under more market-oriented reforms.”

But don’t mind those pesky little things called facts. Because, #brosurance! And keg stands ….

Originally posted at Policy Mic

At Generation Opportunity, we’re flattered that PolicyMic writer Stephen Calabria was so taken with our Opt Out of Obamacare campaign, that he decided to showcase our work on Capitol Hill. According to a piece published at this website by the aforementioned author, he asked 41 House members if they had seen our pair of ads (which garnered over 3 million views combined on YouTube in a little over two weeks). The conclusion Calabria draws is that because 24 Republican politicians either hadn’t seen our ads or had no particular opinion on them, that our campaign has been ineffective. What Mr. Calabria seemingly fails to recognize is that the last thing we’re seeking is approval from elected officials. After all, politicians don’t need to opt out of Obamacare – they already get a special exemption, and so do their staffers.

But the rest of us – particularly Millennials, who are hardest hit by Obamacare, have been offered no such exemption. We have to take it upon ourselves to opt out of the program and find better coverage options, precisely what Generation Opportunity’s campaign is promoting. In fact, we’ve already received nearly 200 requests for our free Opt Out Kit from young people across the nation, with new applications rolling in daily. These people are students eager to educate their peers about their options in the wake of Obamacare’s attempt to siphon off more of our meager resources to further subsidize older, richer Americans. Generation Opportunity has also been on the ground at college campuses throughout the country, and we’re proudly partnering with grassroots activists who understand that one-size-fits-all “fixes” sent down from Capitol Hill aren’t doing young people any favors.

We aren’t particularly interested in what politicians think about our campaign, but we’d actually like to thank Mr. Calabria for coaxing Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.) into making Generation Opportunity’s point for us. In response to an inquiry about our Opt Out project, the congressman stated, “That’s the worst thing that I’ve heard of in this thing. I don’t think it’s sensible. I hope young people reject that notion, because we need young people in the health plan to help balance out all the seniors that use health [insurance], as we all know, more than other people.”

We appreciate that instructive moment of clarity, because Conyers, who voted for Obamacare, fully admits what most of his colleagues won’t: that Obamacare isn’t designed to provide affordable health care to the young and uninsured. The law is actually crafted to treata generation with diminished economic prospects like cash cows when we’re at our financially leanest. The worst part is, it won’t even pay off for us in the long run, because unlike true insurance, it doesn’t calculate for our risk — and certainly won’t reward us if we’ve made smart health decisions that should reduce our costs.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally posted at Policy Mic

If you listen to certain pundits and politicians, you’ll hear there’s an economic recovery afoot. You can look at the stock market, analyze Federal Reserve policies, and debate what the various outcomes amount to. But if you’re a young person, it matters very little that some Keynesian economist talking head claims even more government spending will ease your under-employment woes. Sadly, the cold hard facts — and your $148,000 share of the national debt — tell a different story.

A recent study from Gallup shows that for the month of June, the number of 18-29 year olds holding full-time jobs has dropped to a fouryear low. Currently, only 43.6% of millennials are employed in a full-time capacity. And even if you do have a full or part-time job, watch out, because Obamacare implementation is leading to severe cuts in worker hours – a reason to anticipate the aforementioned 43.6% will continue falling.

When you pair this bad news with data that shows only 48% of college graduates hold jobs that require their degree, that the average student graduates with $35,200 in student loan related debt, and the fact that effective youth unemployment rate is 16.1%, it’s clear that esoteric discussions about economic recovery aren’t producing results for Americans under 30.

The problem for millennials is that, unfortunately, the federal government has crafted a system built on generational theft, and it just so happens that 18-29 year olds are situated right in the eye of the storm. As Nick Gillespie and Veronique de Rugy explained at Reason Magazine: “Social Security and Medicare, which provide retirement and health insurance benefits for senior Americans, generally without regard to need, are funded by taxes on the relatively meager wages of younger Americans who will never enjoy anything close to the same benefits. The demographic math is irrefutable: Entitlements are killing the safety net.”

Welcome to the consequences of fiscally unsound decisions made for short-term political gain, young Americans! While you can’t change the past, you’re certainly empowered to reject current government schemes starting with hiding your wallets when Obamacare promotional groups come to your town looking for more of what little money you have.

To make a program function that even Howard Dean, (former head of the Democratic National Committee) admits won’t control health care costs, the government needs 2.7 million young people to pay more for insurance premiums than what’s personally necessary for them, with no return on the investment.

Sadly, this scheme is just the latest shot fired in the government’s long-standing war on youth. Millennials are inheriting an exponentially growing $17 trillion national debt, not to mention troubled Social Security and Medicare programs that by their own trustees’ projections will be insolvent by 2033 and 2026, respectively.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally posted at Policy Mic

As deal-making over the interest rates of federally subsidized student loans finally begins to subside, politicians are making a lot of noise, but avoiding discussion of the fundamental problem. Arguing over what amounts to less than $10 per month while promoting policies that incentivize overall higher debt burdens for college students seems ridiculous — which is precisely why you don’t hear politicians admit that’s what they’re actually doing.

This political theater in Washington represents the latest manufactured crisis that yields finger-pointing rather than good policy. In an increasingly dysfunctional fashion, politicians wait until the last minute to address crucial issues, despite full knowledge of impending deadlines. Then, when said deadlines pass and allegedly Armageddon-style consequences occur, the rush to “fix” the problem creates — you guessed it — more problems.

In the student loan debate, both Republicans and Democrats are equally culpable. Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner, employing strikingly pro-government-takeover rhetoric, launched a #DontDoubleMyRate campaign, aimed at blaming Democrats in the Senate for failing to pass legislation to address the automatic rate increase from 3.4% to 6.8%. While Boehner is correct to point out that the Senate did not take action when it should have, his posturing puts Republicans on the side of defending more intervention in the already government-monopolized student loan market.

Amidst theatrics in which both sides claim to be advocates for students, the reality is, neither Republicans nor Democrats are doing young people any favors. The deal that the Senate has reached retroactively sets rates through the 2015 academic year at 3.86%, and puts a future cap on undergraduate rates at 8.25%.

But none of this addresses the fact that the cost of college tuition has skyrocketed, even though the explanation as to why isn’t complicated. When politicians decided that promoting access to a college education was a worthy goal — which it is — they worked to institute the federal loan programs that would provide artificially low interest rates.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally posted at Generation Opportunity

When the not-so-aptly-named “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (commonly known as Obamacare) was signed into law in March of 2010, the backbone of the legislation rested on both the individual and employer insurance mandates. As many predicted, however, economic reality is taking a toll on the federal government’s attempt at centrally planning a sector that comprises about 18% of the nation’s economy. In response to increased instances of part-time hires and continued public squeamishness about the bill, the White House has taken it upon themselves to delay the onset of the mandate that employers must provide government-approved amounts of coverage or face penalties. Even if we ignore the fact that the Executive branch shouldn’t be meddling in the application of a law the Legislative branch crafted, the delay is simply bad for Obamacare’s already not-so-stellar reputation.

In response to this development, some members of Congress are noting the fundamental unfairness of companies being allowed to delay complying with the employer mandate, while Americans are still stuck footing the bills associated with the individual mandate. Considering that from the start, Obamacare has been a boon to well-connected insurance companies at the expense of mostly young, healthy individuals, it’s not shocking to see cronyism at play in this delay. Given these circumstances, a bill that seeks to delay the individual mandate on the same timetable could come to the House floor as early as July 17th. But this would be inconvenient for the politicians whose careers are built on using Millennials as cash cows while looking out for their corporate buddies. After all, as recent college graduate Michael Mulraney pointed out at Policy Mic, Millennials – 2.7 million to be exact – who in no way benefit from Obamacare’s regulations are needed to fund it.

The potential silver lining in all of this is that because Obamacare is so poorly structured, it may lead to its own demise. As a result of ObamaCare, young people are being forced to purchase health insurance, which at this point amounts to an average yearly cost of $1,700 (with reason to believe premiums will continue to skyrocket). This amount of money is larger than the fine imposed on non-compliant Americans. Ultimately, it seems fairly obvious what these economic incentives will yield – and it doesn’t look too good for the crony-disaster that is Obamacare. Why would a healthy young person who really doesn’t need health insurance, or wants to pay for a very high deductible, soon-to-be-non-compliant plan, shell out more money? It’s not in our generation’s interest – not that the federal government particularly cares.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally posted at the Coalition to Reduce Spending

“The American people don’t trust Congress or either party, and we’ve given them at least 17 trillion reasons not to.”  -  Senator Mike Lee

For deficit hawks, recent events on the Senate floor have been of the high drama variety. As is typical in Washington, senior lawmakers are eager to skirt normal order and make back room deals, away from public scrutiny. To take the spotlight off of what they’re up to, several Senate leaders have been working to quietly acquire unanimous consent from their colleagues so they can conference with the House on the budget – an action that occurs behind closed doors.

On its face, this sounds largely benign. What’s wrong with both bodies negotiating as it relates to the budget? One would hope nothing – but as a couple of junior Senators have pointed out, in this instance there’s a fundamental problem: Senate leaders refuse to assure their colleagues that they won’t craft a plan that raises the debt ceiling in a backhanded manner.

In regards to his refusal to offer the consent necessary for this secret budget conference with zero restrictions to occur, Senator Mike Lee made a speech on the floor (featured below) that goes along way toward summing up precisely why the Coalition to Reduce Spending exists.

As Senator Lee explained:

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally posted at the Coalition to Reduce Spending

Much of the justification for various federal programs amounts to a notion of fairness. Understandably, people look to the government and its seemingly endless cash flow, and pitch their various ideas to politicians. Naturally, given the revolving door habits of DC, some things get funded for political reasons – but it’s true that others might receive money based on actual merits.

Perhaps some of these programs are helping people in a measurable way. And of course, many may be well-intentioned, yet yielding unintended negative consequences. But gauging the metrics of various federal initiatives is a task for a different time. What’s being delved into here is the irony of the “fairness” concept as it relates to federal spending – particularly deficit spending.

No matter how compelling the case for a certain amount of federal spending on any project may be, it’s important to consider the result of said spending in the aggregate. As former Congressman Hal Daub of Nebraska and college senior Dae Hemphill of The Can Kicks Back recently wrote at the Omaha World-Herald:

“Our $17 trillion-and-growing national debt is devastating the country’s ability to provide for our next generation. If our leaders fail to address our fiscal dysfunction, future generations face an uncertain economic outlook, with the potential of higher taxes, higher unemployment and a lower standard of living.“

As a 26 year old, it concerns me greatly that my generation is being treated like debtors for decisions we largely weren’t even around to make. Given the current trajectory of federal spending, we will be responsible for a national debt accrued allegedly in the name of “fairness” – but at what cost to millennials?

As Nick Gillespie and Veronique de Rugy pointed out at Reason Magazine:

“There’s a new generation gap opening up, one that threatens to tear apart the country every bit as much as past confrontations over war, free love, drugs, and sitar music. This fight is about old-age entitlements and whether the Me Generation will do what’s right for the country and stop sucking up more and more money from their children and grandchildren.

Social Security and Medicare, which provide retirement and health insurance benefits for senior Americans, generally without regard to need, are funded by taxes on the relatively meager wages of younger Americans who will never enjoy anything close to the same benefits. From any serious fiscal or moral viewpoint, and particularly for the sake of helping those truly in need, Social Security and Medicare should be ended. 

The demographic math is irrefutable: Entitlements are killing the safety net.”

Further delving into the problem, Gillespie and de Rugy note:

Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve never posted about anything non-political at this blog, but there’s a first time for everything.

Today is my favorite artist, Billy Joel’s, 64th birthday. In honor of this occasion, here are my top ten favorite Billy Joel songs you probably don’t know, but should. I’m sorry, but the fact that “Uptown Girl” is more well known than these, and other gems, upsets me greatly.

Enjoy.

Summer, Highland Falls

This is my favorite song of all time.

You’re My Home

Best love song ever.

State of Grace

This amazing song conveys the slow process of two people growing apart perfectly.

Stop in Nevada

Old school Billy. A song about escape. Just so, so, so good.

All About Soul

This song is beautiful, powerful, and perfect

Everybody Loves You Now

Notoriety without accountability, and the little twinge of guilt associated with it. This song has always spoken to me.

This Night

Billy Joel’s doo-wop song about giving into temptation. It’s one of my absolute favorites.

Vienna

“You know that when the truth is told that you can what you want, or you can just get old” was my high school yearbook quote.

Tomorrow is Today

Perhaps the most amazing song about a state of depression ever written.

This is the Time

An incredible song about trying to cling to a very specific point in time while living it.

Originally posted at the Coalition to Reduce Spending

This week at National Review, Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute published an interesting commentary entitled, “How Serious Are Republicans?” in which he chronicles how the alleged party of fiscal responsibility is falling short in several ways, even with a big spending Democratic President in office that they’re constantly seeking to oppose. However, as Tanner explains, blind partisan reflexes are often part of the problem.

For example, Tanner points out opposition to some of the President’s proposals such as Medicare cuts and the chained CPI reform. Of course, there may be reasons to oppose these measures – particularly chained CPI, because although it could be construed as a step in the right direction there’s an argument to be made that it’s a tax increase. But as Tanner goes on to chronicle, the problem goes beyond some Republicans acting in reactionary partisan ways. The fact is, too many elected officials in the GOP are just as tied to special interests as their bigger-spending congressional colleagues.

As Tanner states,

“Recall that during last year’s presidential campaign, Mitt Romney’s big complaint about Obamacare was that it cut $716 billion from Medicare over ten years. Medicare is facing a minimum of $42 trillion in future red ink. Perhaps someone should be praised for cutting it. It would have made sense to criticize the president for spending those savings on other aspects of Obamacare. One could certainly question whether the president’s proposed cuts were the best way to reduce Medicare spending, or even whether they would be effective. But Governor Romney focused his criticism on the idea of the cuts themselves.

Elsewhere, Republicans continue to resist any efforts to reduce defense spending. Modest defense cuts were included in the sequester of course — over the strenuous objections of GOP hawks such as John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Representative Buck McKeon. But advocates of increased defense spending have hardly given up the fight — expect continued efforts this fall to undo the sequester’s effects on the Pentagon.

There is also some parochialism: attempting to funnel federal money to one’s district at the expense of the broader public purse. Thus Representative Steve Stockman of Texas opposes cuts to NASA (invoking the specter of an asteroid crashing into Earth), and Representative Jim Jordan pushes the army to buy Abrams tanks, built in his home state of Ohio, it says it doesn’t need. Republican senators from farm states are among the biggest defenders of farm subsidies. Representatives from the northeast demanded federal assistance after Hurricane Sandy. And so on.”

This speaks to the fundamental problem with the incentives that elected officials face in DC. When a basic role federal politicians are expected to undertake is bringing back the bacon not only to their districts but to lobbyists, nothing will change. That’s why at the Coalition to Reduce Spending we believe reform must start at home. When politicians are actively amidst their constituents, making what often turn out to be false promises, inserting an accountability mechanism into that process is key.

This speaks to the power of our Reject the Debt pledge, which can be effectively used as a leverage point, especially in primary contests between candidates. Getting a candidate to sign his name to a spending reduction commitment through pressure from his potential or current constituents is a great way to hold his feet to the fire in the event that he does in fact find himself either back in Washington, or there for the first time.

Amidst nearly $17 trillion in debt with $120 trillion in unfunded liabilities, the time for vague promises is over. As Michael Tanner so aptly explained, the problem is a bipartisan one. Thus, it must be answered with a non-partisan, constituent centered solution. If a candidate can’t put pen to paper on his campaign promises, why utter the words in the first place?