The American public has become familiar with many new political phrases since the start of the Obama administration: Jobs saved or created. Bending the cost curve. And, of course, green jobs. As with all political catch-phrase, Americans should be warned: what they think the term means and the actual policies advanced in its name are often very different things.
Americans make many resolutions at the start of a new year. The most common New Year's resolutions are about diet and exercise, but in 2010, many Americans pledged to focus on getting financially fit.
Everyone knows our public schools aren't what they should be. The nation spends more than $500 billion per year on K-12 education.
Just how much can the average American family expect to pay for health insurance if the proposals currently making their way through Congress become law?
Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) is a breast cancer survivor who is passionate about ensuring that women have health care options. After undergoing treatment in 2008, she worked to promote screening efforts to insure that women are diagnosed early to increase their chance of survival.
It's only been a few weeks since an aghast but riveted world watched as a home-made balloon, presumably carrying a six-year-old child, soared and dipped across the Colorado sky. It seems like it's been a lot longer.
Advocates of greater government involvement in the health care system are asking the public to put a lot of faith in bureaucrats' ability to decide what "science" tells us is the best way to treat our personal medical problem. Yet the public should be warned: the government doesn't always know best when it comes to making us healthy and sometimes society pays a price for their errors.
Washington—and indeed the country—is engaged in a great conversation about the government's role in our health care system. That's an important debate: changing government's role in health care will affect the lives of just about all Americans.
Health care has dominated policy-related press. It makes sense: the President and the Democratic Party are proposing a massive reorganization of our healthcare sector, and a government expansion that would cost taxpayers hundreds of billions-and potentially trillions-of dollars.
Thus far, the role of the old guard feminist groups has been typical of a liberal advocacy group: They are lobbying for the biggest government option on the table.
Presently, our government is expanding once again. American women should consider what that means for their families and our basic rights and liberties.
President Obama wants to expand government’s role in everything from providing healthcare and preschool to dictating executive pay and our energy use.
When most people hear the term “culture wars,” they think of big political debates and hot button issues.
The American people bought the media's storyline that from the Bush era's sunset would dawn the Obama age of bipartisan pragmatism and competence. Yet today, American politics is uglier than ever.
Women, particularly political independents, don’t like Rush Limbaugh. That was the finding of a poll released last week by Public Policy Polling.
President Obama has been selling the economic stimulus bill as “critical” for the economy.
Democrats had a big show of strength in their near party line vote for the “economic stimulus” package.
When President Obama signs the "Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009," (which passed the Senate by a vote of 66-32 last night) he will take the country on the first of what are likely to be several steps during his Administration toward "universal" health insurance.
The final day of the presidential campaign focused in part on an issue of great importance to workers everywhere—the future of the coal industry.
Calls for greater education funding are a staple of Democratic campaigns. The latest is an advertisement by Senator Obama accusing Senator John McCain of "taking money away from public schools" to give to special interests.
White House: No, We Can't Guarantee Money From Iranian Sanctions Relief Won't Go To Funding Terrorism | Katie Pavlich