Daily Caller High: The first installment

Font Size:

Editor’s Note: Daily Caller High is a group of young writers cutting their teeth in the world of political punditry. For its first installment, each writer was given the opportunity to reflect and write on an event that occurred over the past week.

Lack of Explanation Results in Abundant Speculation
By Jackie Seal

On Monday, President Obama signed an executive order. In keeping his promise of transparency, no one knew about it. Very few sites have caught on to it; the most notable was the Canada Free Press. They were informed by a man from Texas who was questioning the executive order and the secrecy in which it seemed to be passed, not to mention the complete lack of explanation for it.

The title of the E.O. reads: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS. In the executive order you find out that the president will choose 10 governors, five from each party, to act as a council with two of the governors, from separate parties, serving as co-chairs. They will be involved in matters including “the National Guard of the various States; Homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.”

There are several questions being asked of this executive order, such as its possibility of being tied to the Rand Corp, telling the U.S. Army that we need a national stability police force. Some have also voiced concern that this may be a step toward declaring Martial Law here in the United States. While there remains a lot of speculation and it’s important to keep in mind this order could be completely harmless, this much is known to be true: Once again the American people are being kept in the dark. Obama and his team have become increasingly stealthy in passing things as they see fit. But in a case like this executive order the people ought to be given a viable explanation, because without one the people are left to wonder and speculate until they are informed.

Jackie Seal is a high school senior who blogs at Red, White and Conservative and can be found on Twitter at @JackieSeal.

A Stimulus That Won’t Stimulate
by Brandon Kiser

Briefly after President Obama’s inauguration we were promised a “stimulus” that would boost the economy, put people back to work and keep unemployment under 8 percent. And yet, here we are nearly a year later. In December the economy shed 85,000 jobs and 10 percent are out of work. What did the stimulus do? Where did the money go and what could it have possibly accomplished?

Just the other day, the Associated Press announced that despite the vast amounts of money allocated in the stimulus package for highways and roadways, local unemployment remained virtually unchanged. If pumping money into road construction can’t affect unemployment, what can? Where the most money was spent, not too far south of Nashville, Tenn., unemployment is ready to hit 20 percent.

Then comes the issue of what we are paying for this colossal failure that was supposed to keep unemployment, the heartbeat of the economy, beating along under 8 percent. According to a report by Veronique de Rugy and Jerry Brito of George Mason University we have been paying “an average of $245,807.51 per job” when the $157,028,362,536 given out in the first quarter of the stimulus is divided by the 638,826.54 “created or saved” jobs. You read that right.

So, who can spend your money better? You or the stimulus?

Brandon Kiser is a Kentucky high school student. He writes as an assistant editor for 73wire.com, blogs at the American Kiser, and can be found on Twitter @BrandonKiser.

A Tax on Banks or a Tax on You?
by Ian Pringle

President Obama is working on a bank tax; his plan “is to recover every single dime the American people are owed.” Even a guy like Biden should be able to understand that taxing a company only pushes that tax on to the consumer. A bank tax would affect so many American consumers, can the statement really be made that it is an attempt to pay back Americans? Furthermore, we will never see that money again, only the government will, and I bet we will not get a tax break in compensation. So, how does this help Americans?

To be blunt, it doesn’t!

This bank tax, officially known as the “financial crisis responsibility fee” is meant to stop banks from handing out bonuses. However when we actually look at this tax, what we see is that it is a tax on the citizens in an attempt to fix that gaping deficit Obama created. The current administration has said, “all major financial institutions benefited directly and indirectly from the efforts to stabilize the financial system.” So their rationale? Tax everything that was tainted by TARP money.

Ian Pringle is an 18-year-old conservative. He blogs at 17 Pages and can be found on Twitter as @Pard68.