The Intransigent Conservative: Senate

Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Immigration Reform - No to Amnesty!

View the story "Immigration Reform" on Storify Immigration Reform http://theintransigentconservative.blogspot.com Storified by Brian Empric· Tue, Jan 29 2013 16:33:26 @Jordanfabian reports on the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” senators who agreed to an immigration reform framework that includes amnesty for illegal aliens.

“The principles agreed upon by this ‘Gang of Eight’ include enhancing border security and cracking down on businesses that employ undocumented immigrants. The outline also proposes making it easier for foreigners to come to the United States legally to work or join their families.”

“Senate staff from both parties characterized the document as a broad statement of principles rather than concrete legislative language, and one aide said that the group aims to have an actual piece of legislation ready as early as the end of March.”

“Under the 'Gang of Eight’ plan, undocumented immigrants would be required to register with the federal government. Those without a criminal record would be eligible for ‘probationary legal status’ if they pass a background check and pay fines and back taxes. The status would allow them to live and work legally in the U.S., but they would remain ineligible for federal benefits such as welfare or Medicaid.”

“At the same time, the government would spend more to prevent illegal border crossings in part by increasing the use of unmanned drones and hiring more border agents. It would also implement a new system to prevent people from overstaying their visas, a main source of illegal immigration. Those undocumented immigrants with criminal records would be subject to deportation.” Senators' Immigration Reform FrameworkA bipartisan group of senators has agreed to an immigration reform framework that includes a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented,... Gang of 8Brian_Empric Sen. John McCain on Monday with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “I’m not sure if it’s quote politics, but it’s certainly the realization that if we continue to polarize the Latino slash Hispanic vote that the demographics indicate that our chances for being in the majority are minimal. I’m sure that this is a factor because many of us believe that they are a natural constituency of ours; small business, less regulation, big service in the military, pro-life, all of those reasons. But this issue of illegal immigration has obviously been a major driving factor in the decision making of the Hispanic voter.”

Watch the segment via CNN and @NoahCRothman
John McCain: Without Backing Immigration Reform, 'Our Chances Of Being In The Majority Are Minimal' | MediaiteSen. John McCain (R-AZ) joined CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer on Monday to explain his support for a bipartisan effort to reform the immigration... @JakeSherman and @GingerGibson report that the White House praised the “Gang of Eight” plan, but with House Republicans, who usually oppose a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, “it landed with a thud.”

“Some House Republicans have come around to supporting ‘amnesty’ or a pathway to citizenship for the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country who could seek legal residency under the Senate plan. But there are still hardline conservatives who oppose it and will undoubtedly make the Senate plan a tough sell in the House. And the Senate plan could fall apart before it even gets there.”

“Immigration is a delicate political issue for Republicans. If the Senate passes a bill, the House will feel political pressure to take it up, lest they cement their image as Washington's obstructionists. But it isn’t likely to be a speedy process as Boehner (R-Ohio) has promised that legislation will move through regular order, meaning committee hearings and markups that could produce a completely different product.”
Immigration tough sell in GOP House - Jake Sherman and Ginger GibsonThe Senate’s bipartisan immigration reform plan was lauded by the White House and advocacy groups around town on Monday. But with H... The conservative Republicans in the House are right to be skeptical of any plan that provides amnesty, since history shows that this policy does not help Republicans politically, and is certainly no panacea that leads to future electoral victories. Amnesty is just another big government program that adds more poor people to the already massive welfare state.

In reality, open borders with lax security effectively import Democratic voters and maximize their advantage. Because of the Citizenship Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, automatic birthright citizenship is granted to all people born in the United States, regardless of the alienage of the parents, which, like amnesty, serves as a magnet that attracts more illegal immigrants. In August 2010, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated that 340,000 babies in 2008 were the offspring of illegal immigrants, and 4 million U.S.-born children of illegal immigrant parents resided in this country in 2009.

In his October 21, 1984 debate with Walter Mondale, Ronald Reagan supported amnesty: “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.”

In 1986, Reagan reluctantly signed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, which legalized approximately three million illegal aliens. Simpson-Mazzoli required employers to verify the immigration status of employees, and criminalized knowingly hiring an illegal alien. However, the law did not stop calls for more amnesties and did not swell Hispanic support for Republicans.

Since Simpson-Mazzoli, the Republican presidential candidate has exceeded Reagan’s share of the Hispanic vote (37% in his re-election) in only 1 out of 7 elections. The Democratic advantage with this constituency is massive no matter who is running, or what their position is on amnesty and comprehensive immigration reform.

In George W. Bush’s 2004 State of the Union Address, he supported a temporary-worker program: “Tonight I also ask you to reform our immigration laws so they reflect our values and benefit our economy. I propose a new temporary-worker program to match willing foreign workers with willing employers when no Americans can be found to fill the job. This reform will be good for our economy, because employers will find needed workers in an honest and orderly system. A temporary-worker program will help protect our homeland, allowing border patrol and law enforcement to focus on true threats to our national security. I oppose amnesty, because it would encourage further illegal immigration and unfairly reward those who break our laws. My temporary-worker program will preserve the citizenship path for those who respect the law, while bringing millions of hardworking men and women out from the shadows of American life.”

In John McCain’s 2008 speech to NALEO, he likewise promoted a comprehensive change: “I and many other colleagues twice attempted to pass comprehensive immigration legislation to fix our broken borders; ensure respect for the laws of this country; recognize the important economic necessity of immigrant laborers; apprehend those who came here illegally to commit crimes; and deal practically and humanely with those who came here, as my distant ancestors did, to build a better, safer life for their families, without excusing the fact they came here illegally or granting them privileges before those who did.” Pew Hispanic CenterBrian_Empric So why don’t Hispanics vote for Republicans? Heather Mac Donald explains:

“The call for Republicans to discard their opposition to immigration amnesty will grow deafening in the wake of President Obama’s victory. Hispanics supported Obama by a margin of nearly 75 percent to 25 percent, and may have provided important margins in some swing states. If only Republicans relented on their Neanderthal views regarding the immigration rule of law, the message will run, they would release the inner Republican waiting to emerge in the Hispanic population.”

“It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation… And a strong reason for that support for big government is that so many Hispanics use government programs.”

“The idea of the ‘social issues’ Hispanic voter is also a mirage. A majority of Hispanics now support gay marriage, a Pew Research Center poll from (October) found. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate is 53 percent, about twice that of whites.”

“A Fox News Latino poll in September 2012 found that 62 percent of likely Latino voters backed President Obama’s handling of health care, including the Affordable Care Act. Only 25 percent of those voters wanted the act repealed. The Catholic Church’s strong opposition to the bill’s contraception mandate did not tip the Latino scales against it, dealing another blow to the myth of the ‘social values’ Hispanic conservative.”

“Rather than solving the Republican party’s alleged Hispanic problem, the suddenly popular immigration amnesty could exacerbate it. Those who oppose amnesty do so on two grounds: a revulsion against violations of the rule of law and a fear that an amnesty will attract more illegal immigrants to the country, as previous amnesties in Europe and the U.S. have done. Those illegal immigrants who are drawn in by the hope of yet another future amnesty will be precisely that category of immigrant which now provides an ever-growing base for the Democratic party — low-skilled individuals who disproportionately consume government services and who lack the social capital to reliably inoculate their children against America’s underclass culture.” Why Hispanics Don't Vote for RepublicansHeather Mac Donald writes on NRO: The call for Republicans to discard their opposition to immigration amnesty will grow deafening in the ... Re: Why Hispanics Don't Vote for RepublicansHeather Mac Donald writes on NRO: To follow up on the question of whether Hispanics are held back from their natural Republican affinitie... Rachel Campos-Duffy, the Mexican-American wife of Wisconsin Republican Congressman Sean Duffy (and cast member on The Real World: San Francisco in 1994), agrees that a quick-fix amnesty solution will do more harm than good for Republicans:

“Yes, we have a serious problem with Hispanics… But the quick-fix immigration solutions now being offered by the likes of Charles Krauthammer and other establishment-elites figures are an over-correction, do not actually address the root of the problem, and, frankly, may even accelerate our losses in the crucial Hispanic demographic.”

“Hispanics rank immigration fourth in their list of concerns, behind the economy, education, and health care.”

“Hispanics come to America for the American Dream. They are ‘trabajadores,’ and you would be hard pressed to find an American farmer, contractor, or restaurant owner who would not testify to their work ethic. Unfortunately, the communities in which they live and work are teeming with liberal activists… All of these activist groups and institutions have a common ideology and an affinity for big and centralized government, and of course, entitlements. They go out of their way to sign folks up and to begin the cycle of government dependency.”

“The sad fact is that these activists operate unimpeded. The voices of economic freedom, personal responsibility, and self-determination are virtually nonexistent in Hispanic communities and media… Meanwhile, since Republicans and conservatives prefer D.C. think tanks and expensive ad buys to the long, hard, dowdy work of community organizing, we’ve effectively ceded these communities and the culture that surrounds them to the Left.”

“The irony of the now trendy quick-fix solutions of immigration and amnesty among GOP and conservative elites is that these short-term solutions may actually worsen our problem with Hispanics… without conservatives on the ground, educating and organizing on behalf of our values, we’ll just be helping the Left increase its numbers.” Read my column on NRO. Tell me if u agree with my strategy on attracting Hispanics 2 GOP?http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333319/gop-s-hispanic-opportunity-rachel-campos-duffyRachel Campos-Duffy Victor Davis Hanson (@VDHanson) also writes that Republicans are right to worry about the Latino vote, but the wrong solution would be worse than none.

“Postelection panic among conservatives about the Latino vote has reached the point of absurdity — and mostly reveals the naïveté of detached political grandees who know little about the ideology and motivations of those they are now supposed to adroitly woo.”

“In the first place, why do Republicans think their conservative message is a natural one for the majority of contemporary Latinos/Hispanics — rubrics that strangely now include everyone from Cubans and upscale Argentinians to Oaxacan indigenous peoples and Hondurans? In truth, the vast majority of Latinos who vote overwhelmingly Democratic is made up of poorer immigrants from Central America and Mexico rather than Marco Rubio–like second-generation Cuban-Americans.”

“Second, the ‘grand bargain’ on comprehensive immigration reform envisions ending illegal immigration but granting amnesty to, at least, those who were brought here as children and are still under 25, in school or in the military, and without a criminal record. But why do Republicans think Latinos are in any significant way opposed to continuing illegal immigration?... An expectation of cyclical amnesty or a general unwillingness of Americans to enforce their own laws is a magnet for millions in Latin America.”

“For all practical purposes, ‘comprehensive reform’ means granting amnesty but also leaving the border fence uncompleted, having a guest-worker program, and issuing green cards to millions of illegal residents.”

“For all the talk of family values and natural conservatism, there is not much evidence that rates of illegitimacy, crime, or divorce are much lower among Latinos than among the general population, and plenty of reason to believe that they may in fact be higher than averages among whites and Asians. Issues like abortion, gay marriage, and environmentalism have been successfully welded by the Latino leadership into a liberal package — at best, the price that Latino elites pay to white liberal counterparts for their support of amnesty and generous entitlements; at worst, because they believe these issues are a thorn in the side of the status quo establishment.”

“What, then, should Republicans do? Stick to their melting-pot principles and apply them across the board, regardless of race and tribe, emphasizing the content of our characters rather than the color of our skins.”

“The success of the Obama campaign in capturing the minority vote was not due to a Republican failure to have minority voices (cf. the party’s multiracial convention), nor was it due to opposition to the DREAM Act, but rather to a moral failure on the part of Republicans (not even a mild rebuke to Joseph Lowery’s racist rant?) to demonstrate that those who were building racial divisions for political advantage were themselves the real racists.”
The Latino-Vote ObsessionVictor Davis Hanson writes on NRO: Postelection panic among conservatives about the Latino vote has reached the point of absurdity - and ... Mark Hugo Lopez (@mhugolopez) and Paul Taylor analyze the exit polls and Latino voters in the last election:

“Obama carried Florida’s Hispanic vote 60% to 39%, an improvement over his 57% to 42% showing in 2008. Also, Hispanics made up 17% of the Florida electorate this year, up from 14% in 2008.

“The state’s growing non-Cuban population—especially growth in the Puerto Rican population in central Florida—contributed to the president’s improved showing among Hispanic voters. This year, according to the Florida exit poll, 34% of Hispanic voters were Cuban while 57% were non-Cuban. Among Cuban voters, the vote was split—49% supported Obama while 47% supported Romney. Among the state’s non-Cuban voters, Obama won 66% versus 34% for Romney.”

“For Hispanic voters, according to the national exit poll, 60% identified the economy as the most important issue (of four listed) facing the country today, virtually the same as the share (59%) of the general electorate that identified the economy as the nation’s most important issue. On the other three issues asked about, for Hispanic voters, the economy was followed by health care (18%), the federal budget deficit (11%) and foreign policy (6%).

“Throughout this election cycle, the issue of immigration has been an important issue for Hispanics. In the national exit poll, voters were asked about what should happen to unauthorized immigrants working in the U.S. According to the national exit poll, 77% of Hispanic voters said these immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for legal status while 18% said these immigrants should be deported.”

“According to the national exit poll, Hispanic women supported Obama more than Hispanic males—76% versus 65%.”

“Among Latino voters whose total family income is below $50,000, 82% voted for Obama while 17% voted for Romney. Among Latino voters with family incomes of $50,000 or more, 59% voted for Obama while 39% voted for Romney.”

See also: http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012/11/2012_Latino_vote_exit_poll_analysis_final_11-09.pdf
Obama won 71% of #Hispanic vote, the highest since Bill Clinton won 72% in 1996 http://pewrsr.ch/UwZC6l http://pic.twitter.com/mfS9jFaLPew Hispanic Center

Friday, January 25, 2013

Friday’s Florilegium

@AUG_RickMcKee

View the story "Friday’s Florilegium (1/25/13)" on Storify Friday’s Florilegium (1/25/13) http://theintransigentconservative.blogspot.com Storified by Brian Empric· Fri, Jan 25 2013 20:44:45 Yesterday, the Senate approved a deal that will keep the 60-vote threshold for halting a filibuster but will streamline some of the more cumbersome procedures. These changes, crafted in part by John McCain, will effectively “thwart the power of a small band of conservatives who have used the Senate’s complicated rules to their advantage.”

Sean Trende (@SeanTrende) writes that a statistical analysis of future presidential, House and Senate races suggests that Democrats should be wary of wishing for filibuster reforms. Trende’s analysis shows that Republican trifectas (control of the presidency, House, and Senate) are much more likely than Democratic trifectas in the near future, by a 20% to 3% margin.

“Even if (Harry) Reid were to lower the number of votes needed to move legislation through the Senate to 20 votes, it still wouldn’t significantly advance the Democratic cause in Congress, because the Republican House acts as an effective filibuster.”

Trende writes that Democrats may have a short term structural demographic edge over Republicans in the race for the presidency, but in the long run each party has won the popular vote twenty times. For control of the House, he notes that given the current district configurations and tightly packed geographic Democratic constituencies, it is difficult for Democrats to retake the House (except in wave years).

Trende assumes that Democrats will win two-thirds of the presidential elections in the short-to-medium term, and will win the House 20% of the time.

“Take 2012 as an example. With an electorate that featured one of the most favorable demographic tilts toward Democrats in recent memory, with a president winning by a decent margin, and with Democrats even winning the popular vote for the House by a point, Republicans won the third-largest number of seats they have enjoyed after an election since the 1920s.”

Almost half of Trende’s column is devoted to a rigorous statistical analysis of the Senate, using Monte Carlo simulations to quantify the Republicans natural advantage in future Senate races. He estimates the percentage of the vote that each state will cast for each party, using the past five presidential elections as a base line with a few statistical corrections.

“The Senate is a natural GOP gerrymander. Consider: Mitt Romney lost by 3.8 points, but still carried 24 states. John McCain lost by 7.3 points, but carried 22 states. On the other hand, when John Kerry lost by only 2.5 points, he carried just 19 states. Twenty-seven states currently have Republican PVIs, meaning that in a completely neutral environment, we’d expect them to vote for a Republican.”

“…running our simulation 2,000 times, we find Republicans winning control of the Senate 74 percent of the time, with 51 seats on average… And even if this is a touch too optimistic for Republicans, our House and presidential estimates are probably a touch too optimistic for Democrats.”

“Already we can see the problem for the Democrats -- control of just the Senate is very difficult for them to maintain over the long haul. At the same time, Republicans should never achieve a filibuster-proof majority; the best they do in our simulation is 59 seats, once every 1,000 elections.”

Since we know that Democrats have almost no understanding of basic math, it comes as no surprise that they also have no understanding of how unlikely it is that they will control the White House and all of Congress.

“Weakening the filibuster was a perfectly sensible goal for liberals back in the 1970s, when Democrats arguably had natural Senate and House majorities, and their main goal was to diminish the ability of Southern Democrats to cross the liberal leadership. But it makes much less sense today.”

“There’s no immediate benefit for Democrats, little short- or medium-term benefit, and some potentially catastrophic downsides for them during that time frame.” Why filibuster reform is problematic for Democrats. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/01/24/why_democrats_should_fear_filibuster_reform.htmlSean Trendē Jonathan S. Tobin (@TobinCommentary) answers Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s infamous question, “What difference does it make?”:

“An administration that sought, for political purposes, to give the American people the idea that al-Qaeda had been ‘decimated’ and was effectively out of commission had a clear motive during a presidential campaign to mislead the public about Benghazi. The fact that questions are still unanswered about this crime and that Clinton and President Obama seem more interested in burying this story along with the four Americans that died is an outrage that won’t be forgotten.”

“The problem here is not just what she considers an irrelevant question from Johnson or a mere ‘difference of opinion’–as she characterized Senator John McCain’s scathing attack on her record on the issue–but a belief that four dead Americans in Benghazi was really not such an earth-shaking event.”

“‘What difference does it make’ is an answer that ought to hang over Hillary Clinton for the rest of her public career. It is just one more indication that what happened after Benghazi in the State Department was akin to a cover up. Should Clinton run for president in 2016, this is a story that won’t go away. Nor should it.” Hillary's "What difference does it make?" answer about admin Benghazi lies will haunt her in 2016. http://goo.gl/EFl89Jonathan S. Tobin Robert J. Samuelson writes that there was a “make-believe quality” to Obama’s second inaugural address. There are, in fact, daunting realities to the problems of paying for the retirement of the baby boom and climate change, which cannot be solved solely with rousing rhetoric and political grit.

“Excluding (Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid) programs from even modest budget cuts — as Obama seems inclined to do — imposes huge costs on the young. Their taxes will rise, big deficits will persist or spending cuts will be concentrated on other programs more important to the working population (for starters, grants to state and local governments). There’s no honest way around these conflicts, but Obama pretended they don’t exist.”

“On climate change, the difficulty is greater. Environmentalists argue that emissions from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) need to be cut 50 percent to 80 percent by mid-century to avoid a ruinous warming. The problem is that there’s simply no plausible way to get from here to there without, in effect, shutting down the world economy… The politics of climate change are excruciatingly difficult. Do we make heroic efforts (involving more regulations, subsidies or energy taxes) to curb emissions when any U.S. decreases would have only a tiny global effect?”

“Why are Americans so disillusioned with politics? One reason is that our leaders — and this applies to both parties — often create narratives that seem uplifting and convincing only because they are completely detached from underlying realities. These fantasies transcend routine rhetorical flourishes and self-serving exaggerations and simplifications. But sooner or later, the realities assert themselves. People grasp that they’ve been misled. They feel betrayed; there’s a backlash.” President Make-BelieveOn the baby boom, Obama said: "We reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country an... Nicholas Eberstadt, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, writes that Obama may be tired of listening to entitlement program critics, who are alarmed about the mounting evidence of increasing state dependency, but this debate is far from over, “because the country's social-welfare spending is generating severe and mounting hazards for the nation. These hazards are not only fiscal but moral.”

“Over the 50-plus years since 1960, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, entitlement transfers—government payments of cash, goods and services to citizens—have been growing twice as fast as overall personal income.”

“According to the BEA, America's myriad social-welfare programs (the federal bureaucracy apparently cannot determine exactly how many of these there are) currently dispense entitlement benefits of more than $2.3 trillion annually.”

“In 1960, according to the Office of Management and Budget, social-welfare programs accounted for less than a third of all federal spending. Today, entitlement programs account for nearly two-thirds of federal spending.”

“According to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly half (49%) of Americans today live in homes receiving one or more government transfer benefits. That percentage is up almost 20 points from the early 1980s.”

“At this writing, about 35% of Americans (well over 100 million people) are accepting money, goods or services from ‘means-tested’ government programs. This percentage is twice as high as in the early 1980s.”

“As entitlement outlays have risen, there has been flight of men from the work force… Arithmetically speaking, the recent American flight from work has largely been a flight to government disability programs… On the current trajectory, the Social Security disability fund is projected to run out of money during Mr. Obama's second term.”

“The moral hazard embedded in the explosion of social-welfare programs is plain. Transfers funded by other people's money tend to foster a pernicious ‘something for nothing’ mentality—especially when those transfers seem to be progressively and relentlessly growing, year by year. This ‘taker’ mentality can only weaken civil society—even as it places ever-heavier burdens on taxpayers.” Nicholas Eberstadt: Yes, Mr. President, We Are a Nation of TakersIn President Obama's second inaugural address, he not only outlined an ambitious agenda for his second term but also seemed intent on shu... Paul Kengor wonders if we are at the end of the Reagan era, now that a self-described conservative, Reagan-loving electorate has twice voted for Obama. Kengor accurately lays the blame squarely on this ignorant, senseless, and self-contradictory electorate.

“Alas, with Obama’s re-coronation, liberals are glorying in an altogether new epoch, one of supreme significance to their ideological resurgence: the end of the Reagan era… Sadly, I must admit, as a Reagan scholar and admirer, that they are largely correct. Obama’s reelection does, to a notable degree, end the Reagan era.”

“…Barack Obama is indeed in the process of undoing the Reagan era. He has done so courtesy of a hopelessly oblivious American public, one that exhibits mindlessly schizophrenic voting behavior.”

“…when you break down the data, and ask voters questions like whether they prefer more taxes and more government, well, they generally don’t — even when they vote that way. They favor the conservative vision. It appeals to them. And though your television may have convinced you that half of America is gay, well, it’s far and away not — and the vast majority don’t support gay marriage either (not yet), or taxpayer-funding of abortion. No, but they vote for candidates who do.”

“The deeper truth, however, is that the American voter cannot be trusted; the American voter cannot be depended upon to vote rationally. Other elements, far more decisive, influence their voting behavior, such as (among others) the personalities and personas and public images of presidential candidates, the campaigns run by the candidates and their advisers (the David Axelrod factor), and, most critically of all, the liberal mainstream media that serves as a 24/7 full-time partisan/propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.” The End of the Reagan Era?Barack Obama's re-christening has arrived. It commenced with a small private ceremony January 20, Sunday - God's day. The actual festivit... Frank Newport, Gallup's Editor in Chief, concludes with their polling that Obama faces obvious challenges ahead since “less than four in 10 Americans rate the nation's current situation on the positive end of a zero to 10 scale and that slightly less than half project that the state of the nation will be positive in five years.”

“The 48% who give a six to 10 ranking when asked to project the status of the U.S. five years from now is tied with the 1979 measure as the lowest in Gallup's history of asking the question. Additionally, the 40% who give a negative rating (zero to four) when asked to look ahead is lower than at any point in history. These negative ratings include 10% who say the situation of the country in five years will be zero, the worst they can imagine.”

“In short, Republicans overwhelmingly say that the best times are behind the country, while Democrats look ahead and say the best times are ahead… The 60-percentage-point (15% versus 75%) partisan difference in optimism about the state of the nation in five years is particularly noteworthy. Democrats are overwhelmingly positive about the state the nation will find itself in in five years, while Republicans are just as markedly negative.” Americans Downbeat on State of U.S., Prospects for FuturePRINCETON, NJ -- U.S. President Barack Obama begins his second term at a time when Americans are as negative about the state of the count... Bryan R. Lawrence, founder of investment firm Oakcliff Capital, writes that the Treasury Department’s annual financial report highlights that our finances are unsustainable unless GDP growth rates increase and health care is delivered with better results and lower costs.

“The 2012 annual report for the federal government, released last week, continues to use dubious accounting standards to avoid putting the cost of government retirement promises into the headline deficit of $1.1 trillion… One example is the cost, in today’s dollars, to make Social Security and Medicare solvent for the next 75 years. This grew to $38.6 trillion, an increase of $4.7 trillion over the prior year.”

“Every year of slow growth decreases the amount brought in from payroll taxes. This hits younger Americans twice, with a smaller economy and higher personal income tax rates to pay for baby-boomer retirements.”

“Without the 3 percent growth that the U.S. economy has historically delivered, the promises we have made ourselves will be even more unaffordable. Why aren’t we focused on boosting growth?”

“…if the pilot programs (in ObamaCare) fail, personal income taxes on all Americans would have to increase to unprecedented levels. Taxes that high will crush growth, making health-care promises even less affordable.” Health care threatens to crush U.S. growthThe 2012 annual report for the federal government, released last week, continues to use dubious accounting standards to avoid putting the...