Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
296,326
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→2009-2013 First term
A [[Gallup Poll]] had the president's support slipping among Hispanics and African-Americans. A large majority of Americans, 69%, believe the nation is on the wrong track.<ref>[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704569404576299241421694066 Obama's Unspoken Re-Election Edge] [[Wall Street Journal]]</ref><ref>[http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/12/30/what-is-the-obama-regime-up-to-paul-craig-roberts/ What Is The Obama Regime Up To? — Paul Craig Roberts]</ref>
A [[Gallup Poll]] had the president's support slipping among Hispanics and African-Americans. A large majority of Americans, 69%, believe the nation is on the wrong track.<ref>[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704569404576299241421694066 Obama's Unspoken Re-Election Edge] [[Wall Street Journal]]</ref><ref>[http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/12/30/what-is-the-obama-regime-up-to-paul-craig-roberts/ What Is The Obama Regime Up To? — Paul Craig Roberts]</ref>
===Economic Policy===
The Obama administration initially followed what fiscal conservatives and libertarians call [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].
Warren L. Dean Jr., an adjunct professor of law at [[Georgetown University Law Center]], wrote:
*{{obama income inequality}}
====Background====
Following the [[Recession of 2008]] Obama declared that failure to pass his [[Economic stimulus]] would turn a "crisis into a catastrophe," and promised [[Unemployment]] would not rise above 7.8%.<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure,] Stephen Gandel, ''[[Time magazine]]'', July 14, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31165217/ Obama promises economic relief this summer], [[MSNBC|MSNBC/AP]], 6/8/2009.</ref> The House on Jan. 28 passed a stimulus package of $819 billion in [[Direct spending#New spending|new spending]] and tax increases, despite unanimous Republican opposition. A revised bill passed the Senate with three Republican votes. A compromise bill known as the "[[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009]]" was passed, providing for $789 billion in new spending and stimulus.
Detroit spread gloom on Feb. 17 as GM starkly warned of impending bankruptcy unless it gets more aid. By August, both Chrysler and GM had entered bankruptcy, and come out again in much smaller size, as they closed a fourth of their dealerships, slashed wage rates, and repaid creditors with 29 cents on the dollar. The government gave Chrysler away free to Fiat of Italy, which acquired ownership without investing any money. Meanwhile, the part makers, which employ more workers than the Big Three automakers, verged on disaster and begged for billions. The "[[cash for clunkers]]" proved to be a boondoggle for the rich at a cost of $3 billion to the Treasury.
====Obama policies problematic, say economists and public====
[[File:Obama deficits 2009-2010.JPG|thumb|330px]]
In the view of 51 mostly conservative economists polled by the ''Wall Street Journal'' in July 2009, the Obama administration's economic program is problematic. President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner both got an average grade of 70 out of 100 for their handling of the financial crisis, but those grades varied widely.<ref>Obama scored 59 in March 2009, Geithner 51, and Bernanke 71. See Phil Izzo, "Obama, Geithner Get Low Grades From Economists," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123671107124286261.html ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' March 11, 2009]</ref> Former President Bush and ex-Treasury chief Paulson received average grades of 50 and 60, respectively, when economists were asked how they handled the crisis while in office. By contrast, Fed chairman Bernanke scored much better, with an average grade of 85.<ref>Phil Izzo, "Few Economists Favor More Stimulus," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124708099206913393.html ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' July 10, 2009]</ref>
[[Image:Stim1.jpg|thumb|380px|Cartoonist Chuck Asay summarizes the debate]]
The economists were pessimistic, predicting the economy would shed another 2.8 million jobs over the next 12 months after the presidents program was passed.<ref>The Unemployment rate climbed to 9.5% in June 2009, then hit 10,2% in October, as the GDP fell at an alarming -6.4% annual rate in the first quarter of 2009.</ref> Economists see a one-in-six chance that the U.S. will fall into a depression, defined as a decline in per-person GDP or consumption by 10% or more. They gave equally poor marks to the efforts of other countries to end the recession.
The economists, however, were broadly supportive of the Federal Reserve. Over 85% agreed that its proliferating lending programs are well-designed, well-executed and helping the economy.
In June 2009 public opinion was favorable toward Obama personally, but increasingly dubious about his plans to overhaul health care, bailout the auto industry and close the prison at Guantánamo Bay. With a positive job approval rating of 63% , Mr. Obama had the backing of Democrats and independents alike, with only 23% of Republicans expressing approval. Support for Obama's foreign policies and terrorism policies originally was high at 57-59%.
Billionaire [[Warren Buffett]], former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, and former Clinton Treasury Secretary [[Robert Rubin]] constituted Obama's transition team of Economic Advisers.<ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aSzNv81CYh0c Obama to Meet With Buffett, Daley, Economic Advisers], [[Bloomberg News]], Nov. 6 2008.</ref> Rubin was being sharply criticized for his role in the collapse of [[Citigroup]] which needed $45 billion in federal [[bailout]] money.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0930738020090109 Robert Rubin quits Citigroup amid criticism], [[Reuters]], Jan 9, 2009</ref> Buffett, after the inauguration, spoke out against the administration's declared objective of not allowing "a crisis to go to waste" <ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/03/buffett_hits_obama_congress_on.html</ref> and Obama's massive tax increase on the needy and those least able to afford it.<ref>[http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/buffett-cap-and-trade-is-a-regressive-tax/ Buffett: Cap-and-Trade Is a ‘Regressive’ Tax] [[The New York Times]]</ref>
===== FY 2010 Budget =====
[[Image:Budget-cbo.jpg|thumb|250px|left]]
The Democratic-controlled Congress by a party-line vote in late April passed the budget Obama proposed in late February. It called for $3.4 trillion in [[Direct spending#New spending|new spending]], not counting the $787 billion in stimulus spending approved in February, nor the trillions in loan guarantees to banks. The 2010 budget allocated $1.2 trillion for defense, and an additional $130 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nondefense spending increased by 8% or $40 billion. The budget allowed the Obama health plan, which had not yet been written, to move through Congress on a fast track with no risk of filibuster.
The Tax Foundation says that 44% of all tax filers have no tax liability and most of those will get a check from the government, especially from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)<ref>EITC is a conservative idea first proposed by Milton Friedman, enacted under Republican presidents Ford and Reagan.</ref> and credits for college tuition and child care. The ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' noted about Obama's plan that, "Once upon a time we called this 'welfare'".<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html Obama's 95% Illusion] [[Wall Street Journal]]</ref>
The Budget assumes a federal deficit of $1.75 trillion for 2009, or 12.3% of GDP—the highest deficit in percentage terms since World War II. The budget reordered priorities to provide national health care and raise the federal spending on schools.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the Obama plans will raise the national debt far more than Obama admitted. The CBO says the Obama plan will cause total deficits over the next ten years of $9.3 trillion, compared to Obama's estimate of "only" 7 trillion. The annual GDP by contrast is about $15 trillion.<ref>Jackie Calmes, "New Deficit Forecast Casts Shadow on Obama Agenda," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/washington/21deficit.html?th&emc=th ''[[The New York Times]]'' Mar. 20, 2009]</ref> Senator Judd Gregg says that Obama's budget will double the national debt in five years and triple it in ten.<ref>[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/25/judd-gregg/judd-gregg-says-obamas-budget-doubles-national-deb/ Judd Gregg says Obama's budget doubles the national debt in five years] [[PolitiFact]]</ref>
Obama proposed a carbon [[cap and trade]] system, increasing taxes for families and businesses. The cost to energy consumers would be an additional $645 billion between 2012 and 2019, which will result in higher prices. Rep. John Boehner said, "Let's just be honest and call it a carbon tax that will increase taxes on all Americans who drive a car, who have a job, who turn on a light switch, pure and simple."<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123566843777484625.html Carbon Trading to Raise Consumer Energy Prices] [[Wall Street Journal]]</ref>
The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee was conservative Democrat [[Kent Conrad]] of [[North Dakota]], a deficit hawk who said he was "very uncomfortable with the build-up of debt" and urged Obama to make good on his promise to overhaul federal retirement and health-care programs. Conrad called for "more discipline on the spending side."<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/28/AR2009022801960.html?hpid=topnews Battle Lines Quickly Set Over Planned Policy Shifts] ''[[Washington Post]]'' Mar. 1, 2009</ref>
The Obama Administration based its domestic policies on the assumption of a rapid economic recovery generating the tax revenue needed to fund [[Direct spending|permanent new spending]] program for [[Obamacare]] and "greening the economy". Administration forecasts were more starry-eyed than private sector forecasts. Both parties agree that stimulus spending is needed to deal with the recession but Congress is unlikely to approve permanent new spending programs unless the economy improves, since a large number of conservative Democrats were elected who may vote with Republicans to keep down spending and deficits.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/business/economy/28recession.html?_r=1&th&emc=th Sharper Downturn Clouds Obama Spending Plans], Peter S. Goodman, ''[[The New York Times]]'' Feb. 27, 2009</ref>
===== FY 2011 Budget =====
Obama's first two budget deficits (FY 2009 and FY 2010) were more than $1 trillion, or 9% of [[GDP]]. The [[Democrat]]ic Congress failed to pass, and President Obama did not sign, a budget for fiscal year 2011, as required by law. But the administration continued spending anyway with a deficit projected to be at least another $1 trillion again for 2011. Combined with a shrinking economy, the publicly held federal debt increased by over 20% of GDP in Obama's first two years, and was projected to increase by another 7% in 2011. Experts warned the President that deficits of this size were not sustainable in the long run because the federal debt cannot indefinitely grow faster than economic output. Eventually a greater and greater share of national income would be devoted to interest payments, until eventually the government would be forced to finance the debt through money creation ([[inflation]]) or [[default]].
The President emphasized his proposal to freeze for three years non-defense [[discretionary spending]]. Economist Martin Feldstein observed the president's plan would not apply to [[backdoor spending]]: increases in [[mandatory spending]] programs and [[tax ependiture]]s—new tax rules that substitute for increased government spending,<ref>[http://www.nber.org/feldstein/wsj02182010.html How Obama Should Shrink His Deficit], Martin Feldstein, ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', February 18, 2010. Retrieved from nber.org</ref> like refundable tax credits.<ref>[http://www.concordcoalition.org/publications/facing-facts/1996/0913/back-door-entitlement The Back-Door Entitlement], The Concord Coalition.</ref><ref>[http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/10-27-11_Obamacares_Subsidies_and_Tax_Distribution_Final.pdf Impact of the Obamacare Tax Credits], House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Staff Report, October 27, 2011. <br>"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that Obamacare’s refundable health insurance tax credits and Medicaid expansion will increase the nation’s debt burden by $1.36 trillion in the first seven years that these provisions are fully implemented...85 percent of filers who claim the credit will end the year with zero or negative income tax liability. Since the tax credit is refundable, nearly all 11.3 million of these filers will have negative income tax liability and will no longer pay the cost of government by contributing federal income taxes....For example, a family of four at 200 percent of the [Federal Poverty Level] (about $48,677 in 2016) cannot pay more than 6.3 percent of their income for health insurance...The CBO estimates that the average cost of the reference insurance plan (the plan used to calculate the tax credit) will be $14,100 for family coverage in 2016. Therefore, a family of four that qualifies for a credit in 2016 and that makes $48,677 would be required to pay about $3,067 for health insurance (6.3 percent of household income). The difference, $11,033, is the value of this family’s refundable tax credit...According to the CBO, 20 million Americans will receive health insurance tax credits in 2020 at a cost of $130 billion."</ref>
=====FY 2012 Budget=====
Obama was roundly criticized for ignoring recommendations of his own Deficit Reduction Commission in his proposed 2012 Budget.<ref>[http://www.askheritage.org/where-does-obamas-budget-proposal-fall-short/ Where does Obama’s budget proposal fall short?] [[Heritage Foundation]]</ref> Obama's proposals did nothing to address the burgeoning budget deficit responsible for lagging job creation and the persistent [[unemployment]] which has become the hallmark of his time in office.<ref>[http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9MOJ3VG0.htm Obama's deficit plans run into economic reality] [[Associated Press]]</ref> In response to [[Republican]] counter-proposals, rather than address substantive issues of reform, Obama descended into ''[[ad hominem]]'' attacks against advocates of improving the delivery of government services.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/24/112725/obama-paints-rep-ryan-as-the-gop.html</ref><ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/04/23/the_unhappy_president_109638.html The Unhappy President] [[RealClearPolitics]]</ref>
Rather, Obama proposed increasing spending, taxes, and debt to historic highs, and doubling the [[national debt]] over pre-[[2008 recession]] levels, with no significant proposal to reform the underlying problems. Obama's proposal failed to meet his own pledge to cut the deficit in half during his first term.<ref>Barack Obama, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-of-president-barack-obama-address-to-joint-session-of-congress“Address to Joint Session of Congress,”] February 24, 2009. Retrieved from [[The White House|whitehouse.gov]], April 27, 2011.</ref> By summer of 2012, the [[Gallup Poll|Gallup organization]] reported that merely 35% of business owners approved of Barack Obama's job performance.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/156206/Business-Owners-Among-Least-Approving-Obama.aspx U.S. Business Owners Now Among Least Approving of Obama] [[Gallup Poll|Gallup organization]]</ref>
====Obamacare====
{{Main|ObamaCare}}
With a monopoly on power in Obama's first two years, the Democratic Congress moved to create a government run insurance program that would put private sector insurers out of business. Obama proposed funding the program with higher taxes "on wealthy Americans".<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-care26-2009feb26,0,1056744.story Obama plans 'down payment' on healthcare overhaul] [[Los Angeles Times]]</ref> The new law mandates private citizens to purchase health insurance under the threat of legal sanctions for non-compliance.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/senate-fine-people-refusing-health-care-coverage/ Senate Bill Would Fine People More Than $1,000 for Refusing Health Care Coverage] [[Fox News]]</ref> Critics dubbed the law [[Gestapo care]].
Obama was unconvincing to most Americans. Few saw any advantage in his proposals, and everyone can see the monumental costs. Contrary to his campaign vows for openness and transparency in government, Obama cut closed door back room deals with big drug companies and insurers, and was not upfront with the American people. Polls show a steady decline in support for [[Obamacare]] as the public learned more about it. (By contrast, he had 57% approval on health issues in April 2009).<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_042609.html Washington Post-ABC News Poll ] ''[[Washington Post]]'' July 20, 2009</ref> Conservative Democrats in Congress—who call themselves "[[Blue Dog Democrats]]"—were reluctant to sign on to any proposal costing a trillion dollars over the next decade. The controversy lowered Obama's overall approval and was a major factor in the [[2010 Midterm elections]] which ousted the Democratic majority from the House.
====Tax increases====
On January 1, 2013 President Obama permanently increased taxes on the middle and [[working class]]es by raising the payroll withholding 2%, effectively costing working families and anyone with a job on average $1000 per year.<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324581504578231721868759336.html The Next Tax Increase] [[Washington Post]]</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-unspoken-payroll-tax-increases/2012/07/25/gJQArLRq9W_blog.html Fact Checker] ''[[Washington Post]]''</ref>
====Bailouts====
After spending over a trillion dollars in cash and guarantees (by Bush and Obama combined), the [[bailout]] of the financial system by October 2009 seemed to have rewarded the big banks but failed to stimulate the economy and job creation. Obama started to decline in the polls, as independents and Republicans became increasingly critical. A firestorm erupted in March when it was learned that AIG insurance company, now 80% government owned, was paying $165 million in bonuses to the traders that had caused $60 billion in losses. Geithner was appointed to the Treasury largely on the basis of his work at the New York Fed, where his most important action was to design the bailout of AIG. Under Geithner AIG received $170 billion from the government.
[[Image:Toxic-assets.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Geithner plans to sell toxic assets to Wall Street]]
With major banks on the verge of failure, Treasury Secretary [[Timothy Geithner]] unveiled yet another massive bailout program in mid-February. Trillions would be spent to move toxic assets out of the banks, but few details were provided. The widespread reaction was very negative, and Geithner lost more of his credibility as a problem solver. Geithner finally came back with a plan on March 23 that did not need additional funding or approval by Congress. The Treasury used $100 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as well as new capital from private investors, in order to generate $500 billion to buy toxic loans and assets. The program could potentially expand to $1 trillion over time. In June some of the major banks started to repay their federal loans.
[[Image:Jobs09q1.jpg|thumb|250px]] [[Image:Job-loss-09.jpg|thumb|250px|US job losses January 1-March 31, 2009]]
The Federal Reserve in June said conditions deteriorated in many regions of the country, with commercial real estate and labor markets in deep trouble. The Fed did not forecast a significant boost in economic activity in 2009. Despite costly government efforts to encourage borrowing, it remained very difficult for consumers and businesses to obtain loans.
The General Motors bailout, which Obama promised would make taxpayers money, resulted in an $11 billion loss;<ref>[http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/taxpayers-to-lose-at-least-11-billion-on-general-motors-bailout/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OTB+%28Outside+The+Beltway+%7C+OTB%29 Taxpayers To Lose At Least $11 Billion On General Motors Bailout] [[Outside The Beltway]]</ref> however Democratic Congressional seats in the areas affected that received the aid, remained Democratic in the [[2010 Midterm elections]] despite the persistent high unemployment among workers who were not directly employed in the auto industry in those same districts.
====Education====
To the angst of liberal supporters, the administration's first proposals for school reform relied heavily on Bush-era ingredients and adds others that make unions gag. They include standardized testing, school accountability, performance pay, and charter schools—all of which are integral to Obama'a $4.35 billion "Race to the Top" grant competition to spur innovation. Liberals dislike all these new ideas. "It looks like the only strategies they have are charter schools and measurement," protested Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. "That's Bush III."<ref>See [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092403197.html Nick Anderson, "Unions Criticize Obama's School Proposals as 'Bush III'"], ''[[Washington Post]]'' Sept. 25, 2009</ref>
Obama and the Democrats successfully killed the Washington D.C. school voucher program which granted school choice to primarily poor African-American and minority families and children.<ref>[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-11/politics/martin.vouchers_1_vouchers-school-choice-democrats?_s=PM:POLITICS Commentary: Obama, Dems wrong to kill school vouchers] [[CNN]]</ref> After the 2010 Midterm elections the [[Republican]]s revived the program.<ref>http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/2011/03/republicans-care-more-about-poor-children-than-democrats-d-c-vouchers-restored-in-house-vote.html</ref>
====Internet Regulation====
Before the Obama administration began forcing its [[big government]] agenda into all spheres of the economy, the [[Internet]] was open and adaptive because it was free of government regulation.<ref>Conn Carroll. [http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/27/if-the-fcc-had-regulated-the-internet/ If the FCC Had Regulated the Internet], [[Heritage Foundation|blog.heritage.org]], December 27, 2010.</ref> A ''[[Rasmussen Reports]]'' survey found that only 21 percent (21%) of likely U.S. Voters wanted the [[Federal Communications Commission]] (FCC) to regulate the Internet as it does [[radio]] and [[television]]. Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters said they believe that the FCC would use its regulatory authority to promote a political agenda.<ref>The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters nationwide was conducted on December 23, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2010/just_21_want_fcc_to_regulate_internet_most_fear_regulation_would_promote_political_agenda Just 21% Want FCC to Regulate Internet, Most Fear Regulation Would Promote Political Agenda], ''[[Rasmussen Reports]]'', December 28, 2010</ref> But [[President Obama|President Obama's]] appointed FCC Chairman [[Julius Genachowski]], along with three other Democrats on the commission, helped craft a plan to impose so-called "[[net neutrality]]" rules on [[Internet service providers]], by taking an unprecedented step to expand government's reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings.<ref>James Gattuso, “FCC’s Christmas Gift for the Internet: Net Neutrality Regulation,” The Foundry, December 1, 2010, at [http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/01/fcc%e2%80%99s-christmas-gift-for-the-internet-net-neutrality-regulation http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/01/fcc%e2%80%99s-christmas-gift-for-the-internet-net-neutrality-regulation].</ref><ref>'[[Net neutrality]]' sounds nice, but the [[World Wide Web|Web]] is working fine now. The new rules will inhibit investment, deter innovation and create a billable-hours bonanza for lawyers. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395204576023452250748540.html The FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom], ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', By Robert M. McDowell, December 19, 2010.</ref><ref>The Federal Communications Commission approved a plan to regulate the [[Internet]] despite warnings that it could strangle industry investment and damage an economy that is still struggling to recover. [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/21/fcc-poised-pass-network-neutrality-rules/ FCC Approves Plan to Regulate Internet], [[Fox News Channel]], Published December 21, 2010.</ref> In doing so, the agency will circumvent [[Congress]] and disregard a federal court ruling; a federal appeals court in [[Washington D.C.]] previously ruled that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 did not authorize the FCC to regulate Internet use, and therefore that the FCC had no statutory authority to do so.<ref>Lachlan Markay. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/12/21/opponents-fccs-new-internet-regulations-vow-swift-recourse Opponents of FCC's New Internet Regulations Vow Swift Recourse], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', December 21, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://blogs.findlaw.com/courtside/2010/04/fcc-and-net-neutrality-supporters-lose-case-against-comcast.html F.C.C. (and Net Neutrality Supporters) Lose Case Against Comcast], By Joel Zand on April 6, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/12/Red-Tape-Under-the-Tree-FCC-Plans-Internet-Regulation-for-Christmas Red Tape Under the Tree: FCC Plans Internet Regulation for Christmas], [[Heritage Foundation]], Published on December 17, 2010 by James Gattuso.
*WebMemo On [http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Regulation Regulation], ''[[The Heritage Foundation]]''.</ref>
As the Obama administration moved to implement big government policies by regulating use of the Internet, President Obama put plans in motion to give the [[Commerce Department]] authority to create an Internet ID for all [[Americans]]. The Obama administration wants to create a national "Internet ID" card to expand its goal of a government-controlled system.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/08/report-obama-administration-plans-create-internet-id-americans/ Obama Administration Reportedly Plans to Create Internet ID for All Americans], [[Fox News|FoxNews.com]], Published January 08, 2011.</ref>
==2013-2017 Second term==
==2013-2017 Second term==