Hugh Hewitt is out today with a sobering call for young public school teachers to buck their union bosses and vote for education reform. Consider this bizarro-world scenario facing the newest generation of classroom teachers:
The Obama-Pelosi-Reid Democrats and their state counterparts have been dining on the seed corn, running up bills that can only be paid by the taxes of people under 40 working until they are 80 and then retiring on 50 percent of what their older colleagues receive now, if that.
Indeed, that kind of generation theft what is being offered to every twentysomething public employee these days. Younger workers already get that Social Security won’t be around to help them in retirement. If the message sinks in that their lavish pensions are also a mirage, we could be in for a major shift in public policy after the November midterm elections.
As CFIF Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs Tim Lee explained in this week’s Freedom Minute, the largest American labor unions are promising to spend a combined $150 million of their members’ dues money to preserve Democratic control of Congress.
» Only 10 days after taking the oath of office, Obama signed three executive orders that, respectively, limited what federal contractors can say to employees during union organizing drives, made it harder to fire incompetent employees of government contractors, and directed federal contractors to insure that employees are aware of their organizing rights.
» One week later, Obama signed another executive order that requires federal agencies to use union-favored Project Labor Agreements on large federally funded construction projects. Not only does that mean many state government construction projects must use a PLA, but so must many economic stimulus-funded projects.
» Hilda Solis, Obama’s secretary of labor, has nullified disclosure rules issued during the Bush administration that were designed to increase union financial transparency on forms required to be filed with the government under the Landrum-Griffin Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act of 1959. The disclosure requirements, which were not enforced before Bush, made it possible for union members to see what their officers were doing with their dues.
If Democrats do somehow hang on to power after this year’s midterms, expect at least double the payback for the unions’ doubled investment.
In one of the most telling departures from the previous Administration, Obama officials decided to eliminate the White House’s fact-checking team soon after taking office. After President George W. Bush received heavy criticism for 16 words he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address, The Decider decided to hire a team of fact checkers to confirm the validity of every word the president spoke to the public.
The result was a process that killed any portion of presidential remarks that couldn’t be 100% verified. The moral of the story: facts matter. At least they did to the last occupant of the White House.
Now it seems like facts are inconveniences that can be swept under the rug. That is, unless their absence appears on top of the new Oval Office rug in the form of a misattributed quote. On President Obama’s redesigned floor emblem appears the quote “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Though it’s attributed to Martin Luther King, Jr., it actually belongs to antebellum abolitionist Theodore Parker.
Unlike Vice President Joe Biden, King didn’t forget to give credit for a line he made his own. Next time, Mr. President, get the facts straight before you commit taxpayer money to honor something that isn’t true.
Conventional wisdom says that when the job market dries up, it’s time to head back to school for more education. With today’s announcement that unemployment is above 9% nationally for the 16th month in a row, many out-of-work Americans will consider going back to school.
In two to three years, those who pay for more certificates or degrees may find that their employment – and financial – situation hasn’t improved. The reason is the rising cost of higher education coupled with the loss in value of college degrees. Per Reason Magazine:
Student borrowing has more than doubled since the end of the 20th century, according to the College Board, with $85 billion in loans in 2008, up from $41 billion in 1998. And as the rising rate of defaults indicates, borrowers in aggregate are not making the kind of money—i.e. twice as much as a decade ago—they would need to pay those loans back.
The government’s response to this bubble has been to get itself more deeply involved in the inflation. The administration has kicked in various types of assistance, such as a $100 million college prep program. And in March, President Barack Obama signed a bill eliminating the 45-year-old Federal Family Education Loan Program (which guaranteed student loans made by private lenders) and replacing it with a system of direct Treasury Department loans to students. The first part of these efforts is a straightforward waste of money. The second has the potential to be a marginal improvement on a system that shouldn’t exist.
So we have too much money going into an asset, not enough value coming out, a massive increase in leverage, and a large taxpayer liability for the difference.
Fresh off home state protests against Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) who, as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), continues to back losing candidates against Tea Party opposition comes a similar bit of news from Florida. The minority leader of the Sunshine State’s state senate, Al Lawson, just endorsed Governor Charlie Crist (I-FL) for U.S. Senator. As an African-American and Democratic leader in the Florida Senate, Lawson’s support is a blow to Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL), the Democrats’ African-American Senate candidates.
But Lawson’s endorsement of Crist is apparently motivated by the Democratic establishment’s successful moves to defeat his recent primary challenge to Rep. Alan Boyd (D-FL). That includes strong-arm tactics by President Barack Obama’s Organizing for America campaign operation.
Unlike Tea Party insurgents Joe Miller in Alaska, Rand Paul in Kentucky and Sharron Angle in Nevada, Lawson couldn’t overcome his party’s establishment. Cornyn’s saving grace is that he still has time to make up with the grassroots voters before November. Unless Obama & Co. can find a way to unify their base in the next two months, chances are people like Al Lawson will stay home on Election Day; making GOP control of both houses of Congress that much more likely.
In reality, barring some major and dramatic turnaround in the political landscape, the 50 seat GOP wave has now in many ways moved closer to the floor for Democratic losses. With the economy continuing to flounder and with fewer than 60 days until Election Day, the potential for a once-in-a-century type of wave that would lead to GOP gains in the 60-90 seat range is increasing.
In a delightful twist of irony, Trende analogizes the perfect storm facing Democrats as strikingly similar to the one that sent Herbert Hoover era Republicans into a two decade electoral wilderness:
Right now, the idea of gains in excess of 60 seats for the GOP is unthinkable to many. Gains of that magnitude haven’t happened in over 80 years. But unthinkability is not evidence. What actual evidence we have reminds us that no political party has hit the trifecta of a lousy economy, an opposition at its nadir (in terms of seat loss), and an overly ambitious Presidential agenda in over 80 years. All these macro factors are pointing to a massive GOP blowout, and they will not be changing between now and November. The Democrats need to hope that the micro factors save them from a once-in-a-century storm.
To put this in perspective, the 1994 Newt Gingrich-led takeover netted 52 seats for Republicans. Flipping the House by almost double that number in the same year ObamaCare – the Democrats’ signature legislative achievement passed – could signal a generational rebuke. That is, if Republicans have a credible alternative to Progressivism once in office.
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post pens a searing description of Christina Romer’s farewell luncheon at the National Press Club. According to Milbank, Romer, until recently chairman of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, established four points during her speech to reporters:
(1) She had no idea how bad the economic collapse would be.
(2) She still doesn’t understand exactly why it was so bad.
(3) The response to the collapse was inadequate.
(4) And she doesn’t have much of an idea how to fix things.
So, where does Christina Romer go from here? Back to her teaching post at UC Berkeley where she’ll presumably try to make reality fit into her mathematical models; only this time she won’t have to worry about being held publicly accountable for her conclusions. (Such as the one where she argued that passing the first stimulus bill would keep unemployment below 8%…)
Three Freedom Works-backed U.S. Senate candidates sent videotaped messages to the 1,000+ gathering of grassroots activists last Friday night. The differences in quality and presentation were noticeable.
Dino Rossi (R-WA) stands in front of a campaign banner dressed in slacks and an open collar, long-sleeved shirt. He thanks Freedom Works and the crowd for its hard work, and gives an earnest, seemingly impromptu riff on the problems facing Washington State and America. Good, but not great.
Next was Rand Paul (R-KY). Seated in an office environment surrounded by book shelves, Paul also sports an open collar shirt. Like Rossi’s video, Paul’s looks and feels like a candidate taking a few moments out of a busy day to look directly into a camera held by a campaign operative, and doing his best to stay on message.
Then Marco Rubio’s video begins. After the fade-in, Rubio (R-FL) appears leaning forward on a stool with one foot on the ground as if ready to walk forward and greet the viewer. He’s dressed in a crisp dark suit and power tie. His mannerisms give the subtle impression he’s studied how to interact with a camera. His delivery is smooth and unhurried. Unlike Rossi and Paul, Rubio doesn’t just talk to the audience members; he connects with them. His video is certainly shot in a studio, and his communications team took pains to mold his stump speech to fit this grassroots crowd.
Judging by the audience’s reaction after each candidate’s video, Rubio won the straw poll. No wonder the Freedom Works organizers chose to end with his submission.
At the Freedom Works get-out-the-vote event last Friday night, several conservative luminaries inspired the audience with their speeches. Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), Freedom Works chairman Dick Armey and pastor-turned-Tea Party activist C. L. Bryant delivered rousing red meat remarks.
The show stealers, though, were two congressional candidates vying to become part of the freshman class of 2010. Charles Lollar is a Maryland businessman, Major in the Marine Corps Reserves and Republican nominee to challenge House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD). Lollar’s easy smile and personable air are making him a rising star in GOP circles, even if he fails to unseat the multi-term incumbent.
Morgan Philpot is another candidate to watch. A former member of the Utah legislature, Philpot is known for holding a copy of the U.S. Constitution in one hand and the Communist Manifesto in the other on the floor of the Utah House of Representatives. Before voting on a bill he asks his colleagues to which of the two documents the proposed bill moves the Utah body politic.
CFIF will be keeping an eye on these two candidates in the run-up to the November midterm elections. Check back for updates.
It’s always great to see conventional wisdom types baffled when someone shuns their advice and proves successful anyway. This week’s example is Sarah Palin, the political icon who continues to irk the government-media establishment by endorsing people she thinks should govern – not those whom others think should win.
No other likely 2012 GOP presidential candidate has been as outspoken in endorsing 2010 candidates. True, Palin doesn’t always taste victory (see Washington state’s Clint Didier), but she wins way more than she loses. According to Time, she’s 8-3 this cycle. Even more impressive that record was made in 11 tightly contested races where many of Palin’s endorsements went to underfunded long-shots.
Time will tell if Sarah Palin can muster enough support to win the GOP presidential nomination, and after it, the presidency. But for now, she is the unquestioned difference maker in tight GOP races. Come 2012, there will quite a few people owing her their support.
You can tell a lot about a man from his pastimes. According to the Associated Press (with associated photos), the former Russian president shot a gray whale with a crossbow from a rubber speed boat in choppy arctic waters.
This isn’t Putin’s first brush with staged danger.
He has been photographed fishing bare-chested in Russia’s Altai region, and was shown on television diving into an icy river and swimming the butterfly stroke.
In April he attached a satellite-tracking collar on a tranquilized polar bear. He also has shot a Siberian tiger with a tranquilizer gun and released leopards into a wildlife sanctuary.
While there’s no need for President Obama to wrestle an alligator or box with a grizzly bear, it would be nice if our dear leader could compensate by showing a bit more backbone in the foreign policy arena; especially towards Iran and the country that built its new nuclear facility. (I.e. Russia)
It’s hard to appreciate the consequences of government policies when you’ve never had to make a payroll. Noting that the Obama Administration has no person in senior management with business experience, AOL contributor Marty Robins says the most troubling deficit in Washington, D.C. is a lack of ideas from people who’ve actually had to work in a free market economy.
What we need more of in Washington are those who combine a broad understanding of the nuances and “macro” implications of public policy with an appreciation of what makes the private sector tick on a “micro” level, and what constitutes good and bad assistance and incentives.
We need those who have successfully built or built up businesses and been personally invested — in a financial and an emotional sense — in such efforts, so that they can appreciate what government can and cannot do.
With all the craziness coming out of Washington, D.C. these days it’s a joy to find political commentary that uses humor – and politicians’ own words – to make devastatingly accurate points. Such is the case with Politizoid.com, an online creator of digital cartoons that use actual sound bites of elected officials.
Check out this episode called “Obamafeld,” a segment introduced with the caption: “The endless banter, the self-absorbed complaining it sounds like Seinfeld but with our liberal leaders it’s just another day of the politics of meaninglessness.”
Finally, some above-the-fray bipartisanship! Tomorrow former Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) will support Congressman Joe Sestak’s (D-PA) bid to enter the body Hagel once inhabited. On the surface, the endorsement can be rationalized. Both men served in the military (Hagel in the Army, Sestak in the Navy), and neither could be confused with a strong ideological commitment to forceful shows of American power.
However, there’s probably something more to Hagel’s otherwise ineffectual endorsement. (He is virtually unknown to Pennsylvania voters, and his refusal to back Republican Pat Toomey won’t come as a surprise to anyone familiar with Hagel’s moderate record.) With Obama Defense Secretary Robert Gates (another middle-of-the-road-Republican) retiring at the end of next year, look for Hagel to get extra attention to replace him.
On the other hand, there could be genuine benefit for Hagel — albeit symbolic. Hagel is rightly understood as trying out for a Cabinet job and the more he can show a willingness to put party aside to do what he believes is the right thing, the more attractive he will be to President Obama and his inner circle.
It will be interesting to see if — and where — Hagel chooses to insert himself between now and Nov. 2 and what benefit, if any, he accrues in the eyes of the White House for those endorsements.
Funny how the “right thing” in this scenario is calculated to boost Hagel’s chances at landing one of the most important jobs in the United States government. Hey, we can’t all be political martyrs – right, Pat Toomey?
Unless you’re looking for it there isn’t much stateside coverage of the political revolution going on in Britain under the country’s Coalition Government. The stories that to poke through, however, are well worth the read, as is this article in today’s Christian Science Monitor. A sample:
The final sight – and this is the most difficult to see – is the coalition’s attempt to create a “big society,” or a bolstering of social groups, charities, and entrepreneurs to step in as government withdraws from much of its role. The best example of this altering of Britain’s social fabric are preparations to enlist 16-year-olds into national volunteer service.
The big society is Cameron’s vision, one that assumes people are ready to shed decades of dependency on London and step in to help others.
The concept could be almost as difficult as the biggest of the budget cuts, due in October, which will test the coalition’s finely woven political compromises. And will the private sector be ready to fill the holes left by the cuts.
So, the biggest gamble in the Coalition Government’s plan to reduce the size of England’s central bureaucracy isn’t the “austere” budget reductions or even the controversial referendum to change a century’s worth of election law. It’s whether Prime Minister David Cameron’s “Big Society” program can inspire enough of the private sector to step into the social services breach created by the receding government.
American conservatives and libertarians have long said that private charity and other civil society institutions are much better at creating a social safety net. With Britain’s budget forcing policy makers into decisions they would never dream of implementing in good economic times, now is the moment for limited government types to seize the opportunity to deliver a better, more efficient version of the social safety net. Otherwise, liberals and socialists will be quick to remind voters of all the needs that went unaddressed when government grew “too small.”
In short: the key struggle with Islam is not inter-communal, and certainly not between Americans and Muslims. It is intra-communal and going on across the Muslim world. The reason the Iraq war was, is and will remain important is that it created the first chance for Arab Sunnis and Shiites to do something they have never done in modern history: surprise us and freely write their own social contract for how to live together and share power and resources. If they could do that, in the heart of the Arab world, and actually begin to ease the intra-communal struggle within Islam, it would be a huge example for others. It would mean that any Arab country could be a democracy and not have to be held together by an iron fist from above.
Considered in the most favorable light, this was the hope propelling former President George W. Bush’s decision to depose Saddam Hussein. If Iraq could be successful, then the path would be open to other Arab nations to trade the strong man model for stronger civil society.
So far, the jury is still out; especially with Iraqi politicians locked in disputes over a power-sharing agreement after an inconclusive national election. (Perhaps if the U.S. State Department had exported our winner-take-all system instead of the Europeans’ proportional scheme, the Iraqis would at least be able to get on with governing after they vote.)
Friedman’s column is a welcome addition to the debate about how the United States can best remake other countries. As of August 2010, probably not much. At the end of the day, the solution to what ails the Muslim world lies in the ingenuity and statesmanship not of some “great man” ready to play the part of George Washington or Nelson Mandela, but in the collective will of the Iraqi people.
In a fascinating article published in today’s Guardian(UK), British newsman Will Hutton gives an eyewitness account of how the free love socialism of the 1960s ultimately led to the unfettering of the Western financial industry. Faced with the decision of managing capitalism or destroying its constraints, Baby Boomers chose chaos over order.
It was an inevitable victory, but it meant that the movements of the 1960s no longer had a political champion for industrial and economic change from below. The liberalism of the great social movements would transmute into economic liberalism – and when Labour lost the 1992 general election the rout was complete. Capitalism had lost every check and balance. There was no Labour movement and no idea of socialism. There was no political party committed to reforming capitalism. There was not even the cultural acceptance of restraint, the need for rules and proportion. (Emphasis mine)
The result has not been pretty. Short-sighted policies in the housing and derivatives markets fueled the excessive tendencies of an entire generation. The spike in paper wealth ushered in the kind of largesse only a self-defining rich nation thinks it can afford: lavish public pensions; diversity czars; a McMansion for every college graduate.
Though he ends his article with the wistful hope of a purer form of new socialism, Hutton strikes upon the deeper current driving the waves of voter discontent in the Western world. The collapse of the economic order was the tipping point that made people aware of how much the rise in wealth over the last twenty years papered over the decline of Western culture. No nation is immune. After two decades of enjoying money for nothing, citizens of the West are finding that what they really have is nothing to show for all their money.
Senior Obama administration officials concluded the federal moratorium on deepwater oil drilling would cost roughly 23,000 jobs, but went ahead with the ban because they didn’t trust the industry’s safety equipment and the government’s own inspection process, according to previously undisclosed documents.
…
Spanning more than 27,000 pages, they provide an unusually detailed look at the debate about how to respond to legal and political opposition to the moratorium.
They show the new top regulator or offshore oil exploration, Michael Bromwich, told Interior Secretary Ken Salazar that a six-month deepwater-drilling halt would result in “lost direct employment” affecting approximately 9,450 workers and “lost jobs from indirect and induced effects” affecting about 13,797 more. The July 10 memo cited an analysis by Mr. Bromwich’s agency that assumed direct employment on affected rigs would “resume normally once the rigs resume operations.
The reason is simple: it’s just too hard to compete for votes and money when running against candidates from the two established parties. Far better, the columnist suggests, to turn the Tea Party’s attention to city and county races where much of the real world of governing takes place.
Mike Alexander and the Pasadena (CA) Patriots couldn’t agree more. Like Mike’s wife Patricia likes to say, “Starting at 6 a.m. on November 3rd, we are going to focus on all the municipal elections here in Los Angeles County: county supervisor, city council, school board, you name it.” Tea Party enthusiasts would do well to check out Alexander’s TEA PAC organization for ideas on how to turn activist energy into winning elections.
One could make the argument that Didier’s explicit positions on spending, taxes and abortion contributed to his distant third place finish in the recently concluded primary. It’s also conventional wisdom that Tea Party members are more likely to vote for a Republican than a Democrat if given the choice.
But that assumes that Tea Party members think that that must vote for either of the two remaining candidates; in this case Rossi or incumbent Senator Patty Murray (D-WA). That’s a false assumption. Many Tea Party members are active in the movement precisely because they think conventional Republicans like Rossi can’t be trusted. If Rossi fails to woo a majority of Didier’s supporters, this November will be his third – and likely last – statewide defeat. The Tea Party will just stay home.
As Didier points out, he’s not trying to back Rossi into a corner, but rather deliver him votes. It’s time establishment Republicans realized that the Tea Party isn’t a slice of the electorate that can be ignored in favor of the ephemeral “middle” – it’s the conservative base.
CFIF Freedom Line Blog RSS Feed
CFIF on X
CFIF on YouTube