Gallup has compiled a ten-point list summarizing Americans’ problems with Democrats’ plans based on voter surveys taken in late July. They conclude that while Americans want some reforms in the long-term, they are in no hurry to see health care legislation pushed through quickly.

The list points out that Americans are primarily concerned about government spending, and in light of the enormous stimulus bill, which less than a third believe has made the economy better,  their concern is with the country’s economic well-being. The failure of the stimulus to stimulate anything (other than the government) has prompted them to step back, examine the details of the legislation and question how it would affect their lives.

The outrage significant numbers of people have expressed is due to the fact that they feel manipulated, and they’re sick of being lied to. The President and his administration had much success using his sales tactics and urgent rhetoric to sell people on the necessity of his plans early on in his Presidency – especially when it came to the stimulus. The President toured the country then too, telling people that the only way to get the economy back on track was to spend more – namely in the areas of health care, energy and infrastructure. Yet, here we are in August, with only about $70 billion of the $787 billion having been spent.  And even with a slight drop in the unemployment rate last week, with payrolls declining, struggling Americans who aren’t seeing any change in their lives are getting frustrated with Washington’s rabid spending, crafty rhetoric and overall incompetence.

And yet today, President Obama looked people in the eye at the town hall gathering in New Hampshire and lied to them once again. He was dishonest a few times, but the time I’d like to focus on is when he mentioned that he would not sign any bill that increased the deficit.

The current price tag for health care is a whopping $1 trillion. The CBO estimates that the proposals will increase the federal deficit by $239 billion over the next ten years. After the next 10 years, health care could add more than $880 billion to the deficit. And it gets worse with the possibility that the CBO may have underestimated the cost of health care by $1 trillion.

Despite these facts, Obama once again renewed his promise today to provide health care coverage to (almost) all Americans, bring down costs and make the system more efficient - without adding to the deficit.

Americans know when something seems off. And, after the stimulus debacle, they don’t want to be lied to. If liberals are going to sell their health care bill, they must engage voters honestly and have a real debate over the proposals. People went along with the stimulus because they believed that without spending that money, the economy would collapse. No one would be spared its effects. But, Americans learned their lesson, and they’re not buying anymore.

If anything, President Obama’s performance at the town hall today hurt his cause more than it helped it. All but a couple questions were from health care supporters who had already made up their minds. And, he stuck to the liberal talking points and continued to lie – about everything from the cost of the plan, to the alleged competitiveness it would foster, and even about his own prior position on a single-payer system.

It caught my attention when at one point, President Obama said, “if you’re in private insurance, first of all, your private insurance can do whatever you want.” That’s exactly the point Mr. President. Now how about some more of that honesty in the town hall forums coming later this week?

*Originally published on The American Issues Project Blog, here.

Two quotes in the WSJ article I linked to above (here) nicely sum up the debate. First, Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama “suggested the measure would allow the government to impinge on the rights of private corporations. “Government bureaucrats don’t know what’s best for America,” he said.” On the other side, Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina said, “We have found out what happens when there are no rules, when there is no oversight, when there is no watchdog.”

There you have the two side of this debate. Each side is concerned with the broader ramifications of action and inaction. Action in terms of this bill puts the government in the driver’s seat once again, imposing terms on private companies and interfering instead of letting self-interested individual choices play out and determine the winners and losers. Inaction, we are warned, is what led us to the economic crisis we face now. So, action is urged.

But there are fundamental flaws in this second argument. First, as to the cause of the current crisis, it’s foolish and untrue to point to a lack of regulation as the cause of the crisis. A simple Google search of ’causes of the economic crisis 2008′ brings up 50,100,000 hits. This is too big a topic to delve into in this post, but I think it’s fair to say that government intervention through Fannie and Freddie along with individual greed and poor choices all played a part in bringing down the housing market. And, as far as I’m aware, banks, while they were greatly over-leveraged, were playing by the rules – investing in the safest market since Americans are known to pay this bill before all others – mortgages. To point the finger at banks and claim that a lack of regulation is to blame for the current situation amounts to singling out and demonizing Wall Street at worst and oversimplifying at best.

Second, it is simply a lie to claim that there were no rules, regulations or watchdogs around, and that in turn, their absence led to the dire economic situation we face. Securities laws and the Securities Exchange Commission were created long ago. They already dictate the makeup of boards of directors, including how many interested and disinterested directors there must be on each board. Further, unlike shareholders, boards of directors have a fiduciary responsibility to the company and must act in the interest of the company and its shareholders. A shareholder, however, can be anyone like you and me who purchases a stock and owes no responsibility to the company to become informed of the company’s structure, liabilities or finances at all. And unlike a director, if a shareholder becomes unhappy with the company, they can sell their shares and cut all ties instantly without any consequences.

It is always easy to blame the haves for anything that goes wrong. But it is irresponsible for members of Congress and the administration to oversimplify, spread misinformation and use the current economic climate to their advantage to inflate government at the expense of private industry and individual freedom. If people think a CEO’s salary is disconnected to his worth for the company, don’t buy that company’s stock. If they think a company is taking unnecessary risks, don’t invest in that company. Government interference is not going to solve problems that were created by many players, over an extended period of time, overnight. And, the ramifications of government continuously overstepping its boundaries like this should be worrisome for all of us.

*Originally published August 2, 2009 on The American Issues Project Blog, here.

Not happy about the new ‘asset’ (if you could call it that) that you’ve acquired? Well, you’re not alone. A new Rasmussen poll shows that 67% of Americans oppose the new deal. But wait, it gets worse. Only 18% of people surveyed believe that the UAW and federal government will do a good job of running GM. Not surprisingly, government workers are the only ones cheering on the joint venture, while 54% of private employees believe that this won’t end well.

It’s no secret that the majority of the country, conservatives and liberals alike, are opposed to bailouts and the new bailout and spending addiction that has hit Washington. We’re told that had the Detroit companies been left alone, our economy would not have been able to handle the horrendous aftermath. But, no one is out there explaining why nationalization and spending more taxpayer money were the only solutions. Why isn’t the administration out there making the case and explaining why this was the only choice we had?

And most importantly, just as it happened with Chrysler, the administation muscled its way through these negotiatons and convinced yet another group of secured lenders to step back behind the administration’s friends and supporters, the unions, and accept less than what they should be repaid. In the new world we live in under President Obama, risk-takers and lenders get punished; failure is rewarded. Rich Lowry of National Review recently wrote that this way of running the economy will ultimately be corrupting and stultifying. With the administration strongarming secured lenders yet again, I think we’re already there.

*Originally published May 31, 2009 on the American Issues Project Blog, here.