Shonda Werry is a former staffer at the Senate Republican Conference from 2004 to 2007, and has extensive public policy experience. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago and holds a Master's Degree from Johns Hopkins University.
In 2008, Candidate Obama established an easy campaign message: bringing more accountability and openness to Washington. Instead, we have seen anything but that.
In the eighteen months since the Democrats passed President Obama's signature piece of legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the news about the impact of the law has been uncomfortable – at times even embarrassing – for Democrats.
Beyond its dangerous policy implications, IPAB is also significant because of the ways in which it provides a glimpse into the way liberals approach governance. IPAB, in many ways, is the perfect embodiment of the modern liberal philosophy.
ObamaCare's individual mandate and the financial burdens the new law places on the states are both examples of the federal government's usurpation of power that rightly belongs to the states.
As the one-year anniversary of ObamaCare approaches, it is worth examining the full impact of the new law and the challenges it has encountered over the past twelve months.
President Obama is experiencing a series of blowbacks against ObamaCare, the Democrats' signature piece of legislation. Unfortunately for the President, it does not look like this trend will end anytime soon. Several new cost-analysis studies reveal that the states have additional reasons to oppose the new law.
As the expiration of the Bush tax cuts looms, the debate is growing louder among politicians and economists about whether or not to extend these tax cuts for the top income earners. The tax cuts are set to expire on December 31 of this year, and unless Democrats in Congress act soon, all of the tax rates will automatically increase on January 1st.