Economy Observer

The October 22, 2009 posting on the National Review by Veronique de Rugy entitled "Critical Condition" is intended to warn concerned citizens about the dangers of the Obama administration’s economic policies. More specifically, Rugy is targeting an audience comprised of conservatives – those people most likely to be tapped into the National Review as regular readers.

Rugy points out that the U.S. economy is in critical condition, but issues around health-care are only part of the problem. She argues that the health-care bill going through Congress right now will not help to shrink the deficit, but would in fact increase it. The claim that the new bill would create a savings of $180 billion over the course of ten years does not take into account that the costs associated with this program are predicted to be $900 billion over ten years.

In addition to the costs of the proposed health care plan, Rugy makes the claim that several of the programs covered by the economic stimulus package will likely live into the future. This fact supports her main idea that the economy is in critical condition mainly due to excessive spending.

Whether or not you agree with her views, as a recognized expert in the field of governmental economic policies, Veronique de Rugy is a credible author. She has served as fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, an organization that applies research principles to understand economic issues and provide policy makers with the knowledge they need to make good decisions. Rugy is also the coauthor of a book about taxation called "Action Ou Taxation".

I agree with Rugy's position that the U.S. economy is headed towards serious trouble. The increasing number of new programs being introduced by the government will lead to a growing deficit over time. The government's liberal fiscal policies will present a burden to future generations of taxpayers. Will these liberal programs be worth the price? I don't think so.

Think for Yourself

In response to Klinenberg and Thomas' "How the First Family Can Lead on Swine Flu" (Opinion- Wall Street Journal September 30, 2009) regarding President Obama's lack of urgency in asking the American public to have themselves vaccinated against the H1N1 flu. The authors hold the belief that the President should do what ever it takes to get Americans vaccinated, and want the Obama's and their children to get inoculated in front of the cameras and on TV.
It seems to me that the authors' intent is to create a larger sense of panic, scarying people into getting vaccinated. In the beginning of the article the authors are not satisfied with Obama simply urging Americans to get vaccinated, claiming that it "fails to convey the urgency required for a successful mass vaccination". They are not even satisfied with Obama saying that he and his wife "will stand in line like everybody else" to receive the vaccine, for they want the vaccination to be in front of the cameras and on TV. They go on to discuss how effective this approach was in 1976 when President Ford got some 42 million people to follow his lead during a similar H1N1 flu outbreak.
It seems to me there has to be more to this story. Why are these two so concerned with getting "Americans" vaccinated? What about the rest of the world? It turns out Anisya Thomas "Fritz" is on the board of directors of the Fritz Institute who is partnered with several of the larger pharmaceutical companies. I suppose Americans pay more than the rest of the world, and are better sheep.