If getting a House chairmanship were as automatic as moving from ranking member of the minority to chairman of the majority, then Representatives Ron Paul (R-TX) and Paul Ryan (R-WI) would be resting easy today. Rep. Paul is the ranking Republican on the subcommittee with oversight responsibility of the Federal Reserve, a role the Austrian economist would relish. For his part, Rep. Ryan is the ranking Republican on the powerful Budget Committee, the body empowered to make significant changes in public policy through the budget writing process.
Both men have reason to doubt an unchallenged assent to power because both are on record with radical plans to shrink the size of government. Paul is sure to refile legislation to audit the Fed, a proposition that may gain popularity with the Fed’s announcement to add nearly $1 trillion to the national debt. For his part, Ryan’s Roadmap to America’s Future is a comprehensive vehicle for delivering sustainable government programs that leave room for entrepreneurship and growth.
Voters had their say on Tuesday. Now, it’s time to see how many fiscal conservatives in the newly enlarged GOP caucus are willing to elevate two of the most ardent foes of big government to consequential leadership positions.
Laying out his interpretation of California’s electoral decisions on Tuesday, Governor-Elect Jerry Brown is hinting that his third term in office may not be all tax-and-spend.
Brown headed a Democratic ticket Tuesday in blue-leaning California, where voters resisted the “red tide” of Republican victory sweeping the nation. He added that the message from voters was clear: “The voters last night turned down a mere $18-a-year (car) tax by about 60 percent, so I would say that the electorate is in no mood to add to their burdens.”
He said Californians passed Proposition 25, which ends the two-thirds legislative majority for passing a state budget, while also approving Proposition 26, which calls for a two-thirds vote to pass fees.
“The taxpayers gave – and they also took away,” he said. “On the one hand, people said, ‘by majority give us a budget’ and on the other, they said, ‘don’t pick my pocket.’
“What we have to do is win the confidence and trust of the people of California,” he said. That, he added, will require competing groups – Republicans, Democrats, labor unions and business – to “push toward a common interest.”
If California does get a reformed liberal as a budget trimmer, it will be more than the state deserves, and a tentative step in the right direction.
One of the selling points for “universal” health care is the notion it carries of making treatment available to everyone. That’s (somewhat) true, but when government-run health care displaces private companies, something else gets tossed out too: privacy.
According to a notice published in the Federal Register last month, President Barack Obama’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will be launching a new health-related database that adds to new data sets to one representing federal workers: private citizens who report pre-existing health conditions or use one of the newly created regional exchanges for pooled health insurance. That information will be made available to any government agency, law enforcement group, or third party researcher that shows a need for it.
What gives OPM the right to collect and disseminate such sensitive health records? The passage and implementation of ObamaCare.
Over the next two years, the real action will be not in Congress but in the bowels of the federal bureaucracy. Democrats will advance their agenda on Obamacare, financial reform and energy by means of administrative regulation, such as carbon-emission limits imposed unilaterally by the Environmental Protection Agency.
No doubt, there will be many battles to fight in Congress against enactment of more freedom-killing policies, but voters, activists, and politicians should remember that the threat to liberty only accelerates once the federal bureaucracy gets involved. OPM is just the most recent example.
Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) offers some great advice to newly elected conservative colleagues like Marco Rubio and Rand Paul: stay true to your campaign promises of less government and more freedom. Here are the highlights:
(1) Don’t request earmarks – they obligate you to take bad votes
(2) Hire conservative staff – they help you avoid mistakes
(3) Beware of committees – in the Senate, all members can legislate from the floor
(4) Don’t seek titles – every Senator has the privilege to speak and be heard, regardless of seniority
(5) Don’t let your reelection become more important than your job – breaking campaign promises for the sake of being reelected ensures you won’t be
DeMint’s brief column should go on the wall of every incoming Senate conservative’s office as a reminder of why they are in Washington, D.C.
With Election Day turning into Election Night, early exit polls are being touted to proclaim winners and losers in a host of contests. As we wait for the dust to settle the Washington Post has a terrific piece on why it’s better to wait awhile before declaring victory.
After publishing today’s denunciation of President Barack Obama as the reincarnation of Richard Nixon, self-professed liberal Democrats Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen don’t need to guess if they’ll be getting a White House Christmas card this year. The duo doesn’t break new ground with their criticisms of the president, but they do enlarge the chorus of commentators disturbed by Obama’s style. From the section recounting Obama’s sins against campaign decorum:
Indeed, Obama is conducting himself in a way alarmingly reminiscent of Nixon’s role in the disastrous 1970 midterm campaign. No president has been so persistently personal in his attacks as Obama throughout the fall. He has regularly attacked his predecessor, the House minority leader and – directly from the stump – candidates running for offices below his own. He has criticized the American people suggesting that they are “reacting just to fear” and faulted his own base for “sitting on their hands complaining.”
Is it possible that the man who ran the longest presidential campaign in history is already looking to extend the record? If so, 2012 can’t arrive soon enough.
If former GOP House Rep. Tom Tancredo can overcome his current 5 point gap to become Colorado’s next governor, we’ll all need to brush up on the principles and policy preferences of his new political home: the American Constitution Party.
As would be imagined, the ACP is in-line with Tancredo’s stance on border security, and regulating the number of immigrants. The party also seemingly provides a home for Christian libertarians. If Tancredo pulls off the biggest surprise of the 2010 midterm elections it will be fascinating to see whether the ACP can get any of its platform through Colorado’s soon-to-be Republican legislature.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund, retiring Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) shares some thoughtful insights about what went wrong for Democrats the last two years. From appallingly bad advice from so-called strategists (e.g. “voters don’t care about deficits”) to an “authoritarian” leadership that demanded blind loyalty from members, Baird’s interview could be read as a warning to the incoming Republican majority. Common sense in rules and policy is a non-partisan winner.
In his new book, “Character, Politics and Responsibility,” Mr. Baird argues that in order to afford caring for the needy, liberals will have to challenge “unsustainable entitlements.” “I would eliminate the concept of entitlements and move to needs-based social insurance,” he says. “The key is to both promote personal responsibility while lowering expenditures by not promising or giving money or other benefits to those who don’t need it.”
Too bad Baird won’t be around to make that case inside Congress.
Power abhors a vacuum. So too do the people seeking it. From Rhode Island comes another example of the chit-building Bill Clinton is possibly doing while President Barack Obama dithers.
You may recall the now-infamous “shove-it” line to President Obama came from the Democratic nominee for Rhode Island’s governorship. It was presaged by the president’s refusal to endorse Democrat Frank Caprio in deference to Obama’s friendship with former Republican, current independent candidate Lincoln Chafee. In his rebuke of the president, Caprio did more than reject Obama’s aura; he embraced Bill Clinton’s.
Despite the furor his crude suggestion caused, Mr. Caprio not only is sticking by his “shove it” comment. His campaign has just announced a weekend event with Mr. Clinton, whom it says is much more popular in the state than Mr. Obama. The campaign told Politico.com that Mr. Caprio “aims to be a governor in the mold of President Clinton.” Zing, zing. It also noted a Gallup survey showing that voters of every affiliation would be more likely to vote for a candidate backed by Mr. Clinton than one backed by Mr. Obama.
A new poll by the local NBC affiliate suggests that “shove it” may have unsettled the race, with Mr. Chafee now running at 35% and Mr. Caprio, with 25%, running third behind Republican John Robitaille, who has 28%. How much confidence to put in such polling amid a fluid three-man contest is debatable. In any case, Democrats will be watching closely. An eleventh-hour victory by Mr. Caprio would be fodder for those dreaming of a Clinton-Obama rematch in 2012.
If Caprio wins, don’t expect a make-up session between him and the president. If he loses, don’t be surprised if he emerges 18 months from now as a top hand in Hillary’s bid to challenge for the 2012 nomination.
“I do think Democrats thinking that they can, you know, hold the Democratic label at arm’s length, I do think that’s nuts,” he said. “You put the label after your name, be proud of it.”
Kaine goes on to list legislation requiring equal pay for women and a taxpayer bailout of the auto industry as accomplishments that will resonate in “the reddest districts in America…” If that’s the best the man in charge of Democratic fundraising can do to off-set the anger caused by ObamaCare, the Recovery Act and trillions in deficit spending it’s no wonder the politicians who actually have to face voters next Tuesday are throwing the liberal establishment under the bus.
Which of these sounds like the person currently serving as the leader of his party and nation’s chief executive? On one side is a man crisscrossing the nation in a mad-dash to raise his members’ hopes, and squeeze out a few more votes and volunteers by Election Day. He is upbeat, full of self-effacing humor, and mindful of long-term perspective.
The other man is in a television studio in Washington, D.C. defending the results of a campaign that ended almost two years ago. To a comedian. And failing.
The first man is former president Bill Clinton. The latter is his current successor Barack Obama. While Clinton is preaching a “we’re-all-in-this-together” sermon in battleground states, Obama seems lost in self-absorption, unable to feel anyone’s pain – including the crushing news that one’s political career is over because of votes the president asked you to take.
Sure, politics is a big-boy business with harsh outcomes. But it is jolting to watch President #44 missing so many lessons from #42 about the importance of running through the finish line instead of stopping several yards out. Just like winning, sometimes people need to feel like they’re losing for something; in this case the president’s uber-liberal agenda.
The failure to lead and inspire in the face of certain defeat will not be forgotten by those Democrats who survive to fight in 2012. Chance are, the memories of Clinton helping and Obama not will do much to make Hillary Clinton’s dark horse candidacy all the more appealing.
Pity Rory Reid. The son of U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Rory is the luckless family scion getting blown out in his race for Nevada governor. The newest Rasmussen Reports poll finds the younger Reid down 20 points to former federal judge Brian Sandoval.
Maybe Rory should have built up more chips with organized labor like his dear old dad. According to multiple reports, the elder Reid is enjoying all kinds of “thanks-for-the-memories” tributes such as gift cards and free food for pro-Reid votes. If Senator Reid hangs onto his seat, his son should remember that liberal success comes from union largesse.
Jay Cost at The Weekly Standard makes a compelling case that one of the reasons a Republican victory next Tuesday may seem ho-hum is that its arrival has been trumpeted for so long. After months of voter resentment over ObamaCare, the Recovery Act, and spiraling unemployment the notion that the GOP might surpass 1994’s gains can seem pedestrian.
The circumstantial evidence in favor of this? As Jim Geraghty’s Obi Wan noted yesterday, it’s all around us. We simply have gotten used to it. Ohio is all but gone for the Democrats, including the swingiest of swing districts in Columbus. Michigan is a lost cause. So is liberal icon Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. Pennsylvania looks like it will go maybe +4-6 for Toomey and Corbett. All of these places voted for Obama, and all of them are basicallygone. Weak Republican candidates in Colorado and Nevada keep those races tight, but otherwise the toss-ups are: California, Illinois, West Virginia, and Washington. The last Republican presidential candidate to win all four of these? Ronald Reagan in 1984.
Whoever earns the GOP presidential nomination for 2012 will have the wind at their back and a groundswell of proven precinct walkers at the ready. We’ll see if the candidate can figure out how to use them.
“France’s problem is that, for too long, the economy has been run as a kind of job club for French workers,” said an editorial in The Spectator, a conservative British magazine. “Britain and France believe in liberty, but have different definitions of it.”
While the British believe in “liberty from government,” the editorial said, the French “still like the big state and squeal at the prospect of being removed from its teat.”
The French also pay higher club dues and expect commensurate rewards. French pensions can reach three-quarters of a working wage, compared with just over two-fifths in Britain. So, if French workers and teenagers strike over their pensions, there’s plenty to protest about.
One of the consequences of France’s keener devotion to socialism is a reduced sense of class conflict. Not so in Britain.
If Britain falls prey to protest, there will be sharper overtones of class struggle than solidarity. Britain is a more divided society than France. Wealth is more ostentatious, poverty more visible. People in Britain have learned to have sharper elbows in pursuit of individual gain, while France prides itself on a broader concordat.
“Social confrontation is part of our democracy,” said Prime Minister François Fillon, “but social consensus is, as well.”
How each country’s government handles the coming backlash to ‘austerity’ in public spending will do much to define the future of freedom for their respective citizens. Hopefully, they can make a credible argument that limited government and greater individual opportunity go hand-in-hand instead of coming to blows.
John Fund of the Wall Street Journal gives support for a notion that seems obvious when attending most Tea Party events: the movement is run by women. Based on mediaexposure, the most successful of these are women who home school their children, and quickly adapt to advances in social networking.
The absence of formal institutions actually seems to help this group of highly-motivated, tech-savvy women find and organize one another because the impediments to rapid decision making are gone. Instead, these political entrepreneurs can maximize their effectiveness, and still have time to impact their most important constituency: their children.
Here Obama has spent two years bestowing upon the peasantry the “New Foundation” of a more regulated and socially engineered, and therefore more humane, society, and they repay him with recalcitrance and outright opposition. Here he gave them Obamacare, the stimulus, financial regulation, and a shot at cap-and-trade — and the electorate remains not just unmoved but ungrateful.
Faced with this truly puzzling conundrum, Dr. Obama diagnoses a heretofore undiscovered psychological derangement: anxiety-induced Obama Underappreciation Syndrome, wherein an entire population is so addled by its economic anxieties as to be neurologically incapable of appreciating the “facts and science” undergirding Obamacare and the other blessings their president has bestowed upon them from on high.
But don’t just take Dr. Krauthammer’s word for it. Check out this clip of President Barack Obama blaming his downward spiral in popularity on a lack of effective advertising.
In today’s Wall Street Journal Peggy Noonan lets loose with an unequivocal endorsement of the Tea Party’s contribution to revitalizing the GOP. According to Noonan, Tea Party activists kick-started the Republican resurgence by decoupling it from former President George W. Bush’s ideological grip.
The tea party did something the Republican establishment was incapable of doing: It got the party out from under George W. Bush. The tea party rejected his administration’s spending, overreach and immigration proposals, among other items, and has become only too willing to say so. In doing this, the tea party allowed the Republican establishment itself to get out from under Mr. Bush: “We had to, boss, it was a political necessity!” They released the GOP establishment from its shame cringe.
Much like 1995, 2011 will feature a Republican congressional majority that is unabashed in its demand for fealty to first principles, the Constitution, and limited government. Oh, the anticipation…
The news just keeps getting worse for the primary resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. With his party facing historic defeat in the congressional midterms, President Barack Obama should also be worried about the coming crack-up among two vital parts of his base: teachers unions and wealthy liberal donors. The first wants job protection; the latter better student outcomes.
We have seen hints of rising tensions between these two elements of the president’s base for over a year. First, there came David Callahan’s “Traitors to their Class: The New Super Rich,” in the New Yorker, an account of how the information-based elites that rallied to Barack Obama break with their fellow Democrats on such matters as free trade, “card check,” and, yes, public sector monopolies over the delivery of education. There was the now infamous District of Columbia mayoral primary, which pit the reformist mayor Adrian Fenty against challenger Vincent Gray. No issue sparked greater controversy than the record of school superintendent Michelle Rhee, who Obama publicly hailed along with Fenty in a televised presidential debate. And no public official prior to Rhee has spent more time thinking of what D.C. children should be taught and evaluated since Thomas Jefferson. While Rhee proved Fenty’s greatest asset in his re-election campaign, the unions clearly did a better job in getting out the vote than did parents whose children benefitted from Rhee’s efforts.
This week, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is traveling to Russia and Iran to secure cooperation agreements on nuclear enrichment, oil production and other stick-in-the-eye measures to America and its allies.
At some point, Americans will wake up to a clutch of hostile nations that have nuclear weapons in volatile regions. Hopefully, the Obama Administration is doing much more strategic planning than waiting for a Felix Leiter-type CIA operative to save the day.
CFIF Freedom Line Blog RSS Feed
CFIF on X
CFIF on YouTube