Freedom Line Blog

For attendees at last weekend’s “American Revival” hosted by Glenn Beck, a heavy dose of American history, culture, and constitutionalism was on tap.  The Phoenix area event is well summarized in Terry Easton’s Human Events column, and further solidifies Beck’s role as today’s Paul Revere.  (Full disclosure: Terry Easton is a friend of mine with whom I’ve collaborated as a co-author.)

Fixing the country will take the kind of creativity and organizational persistence evidenced by Beck and his fellow freedom-loving event participants.  Hopefully, they will continue to lay the groundwork for an American Revival.

With apologies to the band Buffalo Springfield, there’s something happening at the Obama White House, and it is exactly clear: the freedom of the professional press is being severely curtailed in its coverage of the president.  No less a liberal mandarin than the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank compares this week’s Obama-hosted Nuclear Summit to a May Day parade in Washington, D.C.

World leaders arriving in Washington for President Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit must have felt for a moment that they had instead been transported to Soviet-era Moscow.

They entered a capital that had become a military encampment, with camo-wearing military police in Humvees and enough Army vehicles to make it look like a May Day parade on New York Avenue, where a bicyclist was killed Monday by a National Guard truck.

In the middle of it all was Obama — occupant of an office once informally known as “leader of the free world” — putting on a clinic for some of the world’s greatest dictators in how to circumvent a free press.

Milbank goes on to detail reactions by members of the foreign press to the restricted access.  The most disturbing come from reporters based in Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan who chide American notions of a free press as overblown.

Though by itself, the restricted access might not cause concern, as Milbank points out, it’s just the most recent example in a well developed pattern of open secrecy cultivated by the Obama White House.  How long will it take before other members of the mainstream media take Milbank’s position?

There’s a great article by Ned Ryun, courtesy of Red State, about the need to get conservatives and the movement they animate focused on taking back control of America, one local election at a time.  On a day when the Heritage Foundation is announcing a nationwide campaign to flex its muscles with members of Congress, Ryun’s American Majority is training candidates for school boards and state races.  We need both; especially when it comes to putting our principles into action.

All politically/financially/culturally destructive things must end, and so it is that the chief of the Service Employee International Union (SEIU), Andy Stern, will be stepping down soon.  Ostensibly, it’s because he helped shepherd comprehensive health care “reform” into law, one of his key legislative goals.  But as the New York Times points out, he didn’t achieve passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (aka “card check”), which eliminates the secret ballot in unionization elections.  Hard to believe that after 14 years at the helm, Captain Ahab Stern is jumping ship before landing the biggest prize for organized labor.  Could it be he’s being groomed for bigger things than a radical, labor version of a community organizer?

The numbers don’t lie: Californians are voting with their feet when it comes to protecting their pocketbooks…all the way to Texas.

Though it’s hard to believe that more taxes don’t create more jobs, it’s down right shocking to realize that taxpayer financed commercials like this one are failing to draw people to the Golden State.

To answer the Governator’s question: as soon as Sacramento adopts a tax and regulatory regime WAY more friendly to businesses.

H/T: Reason.tv

Hopefully, Charles Djou (R-HI) will be throwing a luau for all the GOP heavies weighing in on his race to replace the retiring congressman, Neil Abercrombie (D-HI).  The May 22^nd special election is getting Djou plenty of face time with CFIF and National Review.  Now, he can claim endorsements by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and outgoing Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.

Pray tell, could fiscal conservatism be set for an electoral comeback?

In the newest round of praise for Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and his “Roadmap for America’s Future,” The American Spectator draws attention to the Democrats’ well organized attack of the plan and Republicans’ tepid endorsement.

In the wake of the uproar, Republican leaders tried to distance themselves from the proposal, emphasizing that while it contained good ideas, Ryan’s plan wasn’t the official Republican budget. In an election year during which the GOP is poised to make big gains, Republicans don’t want to give Democrats an easy opportunity to paint them as the party keen on destroying Social Security and Medicare. But if Republicans are to regain any credibility as a party that wants actually to limit government (as opposed to just talk about it when in the minority), then they can’t shy away from this debate. The looming fiscal crisis is too severe, it’s approaching too soon, and it’s far too big of a threat to the American way of life.

Thanks to the angst of a fretful nation, Republicans will probably regain control of the House and perhaps the Senate this November.  What they need, however, is a governing mandate.  The only way they can claim one is to have a clearly defined set of principles and goals that they can run on and win with this cycle.  The 1994 “Contract with America” worked.  So could Ryan’s Roadmap.  Getting specific on the best way forward to secure America’s future is a fight worth having.

How interesting that the Age of Obama is bringing about the demise of “centrist” Democrats.  The flurry of retirements from the House of Representatives this session come almost completely from the South and Midwest, once the cradle of Democratic congressional leaders.  Now, members like Marion Berry (D-AR) and Bart Stupak (D-MI) are retiring from politics after years of finding their social conservatism unwelcome in an increasingly secularist Democratic Party.

Many Americans outside Stupak’s congressional district were surprised to find an ardent pro-life Democrat still getting elected to public office.  Even more startling was his stance on ObamaCare: he wants a single-payer system; he just doesn’t want federal funding for abortions.  With his retirement announcement today, America isn’t likely to see another high profile Democrat willing to risk curtailing the growth of leviathan for what amounts to a religious conviction.

Then there is Associate Justice John Paul Stevens.  His retirement, along with former Justice David Souter’s last year, will probably be the last to involve a court member of one party leaving the bench so that a president of the other party can appoint his replacement.  Make no mistake; had Senator John Kerry (D-MA) won the presidency in 2004, neither Souter nor Stevens would have waited this long to leave.

So with Stupak and Stevens exiting Stage Left, there are now two more examples of the sharp, rigid partisanship that President Barack Obama has brought to our politics.  After all the election spin about post-partisanship, the only change he gave us was a historical dividing line between politics as people with ideas, and politics as parties with agendas.

Six years ago, then Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA) angered the GOP establishment by running against incumbent Republican Senator Arlen Specter in the primary.  Toomey lost, in no small part to conservative GOP Senator Rick Santorum’s support for the very liberal Specter.  Since then, Specter won and switched parties, Santorum was defeated by Democrat Bob Casey, Jr., and Toomey ran the Club for Growth.

Now, Toomey is the odds-on favorite to be the Republican nominee to knock off Specter in this year’s general election while Santorum nurses plans for a presidential run in 2012.  With Toomey outpolling Specter and Santorum counting on conservatives like Toomey to make him electorally viable, it’s nice to see a limited government politician winding up in the driver’s seat.

You know a candidate is a serious contender when the opposition starts blasting away.  The problem for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is that Republican Charles Djou is about as squeaky clean as congressional candidates come.  The recent subject of a CFIF profile, Djou is running hard on a platform of low taxes and economic growth, even signing the Americans for Tax Reform pledge.  Of course, to the DCCC’s ears, that sounds like backhanding the economic little guy.

Since Hawaii’s economy relies heavily on tourist dollars, it isn’t likely that Aloha State voters will buy what national Democrats are selling, even if House leadership decides to back one of the two contenders challenging Djou in the open special election on May 22^nd.

Sometimes, voters just prefer good, honest, straightforward candidates.

John Podhoretz pens a spirited defense of sharp-elbowed partisan politics in his piece for Commentary today.  After noting that treating politics as war helps to avoid war itself, Podhoretz crystallizes President Barack Obama’s knee-jerk reaction to claim that “the time for talk is over” whenever he hears criticism.  For President Obama, politics is talking; governing is doing.

The problem for Obama, as Podhoretz points out, is that Republicans in Congress and members of the Tea Party movement agree: the time to engage Democrats as honest partners in public policy is long past gone.  The time for organizing and campaigning against their Statist agenda is now.

No wonder President Barack Obama continues to campaign for his signature domestic policy – precious few people have a clue what it does or when it does it.

Questions reflecting confusion have flooded insurance companies, doctors’ offices, human resources departments and business groups.

“They’re saying, ‘Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?’ ” said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com. The California-based company sells coverage from 185 health insurance carriers in 50 states.

McLean said the call center had been inundated by uninsured consumers who were hoping that the overhaul would translate into instant, affordable coverage. That widespread misconception may have originated in part from distorted rhetoric about the legislation bubbling up from the hyper-partisan debate about it in Washington and some media outlets, such as when opponents denounced it as socialism.

“We tell them it’s not free, that there are going to be things in place that help people who are low-income, but that ultimately most of that is not going to be taking place until 2014,” McLean said.

But don’t worry; you’ll start paying for the benefits this year.

H/T: Miami Herald

The defining battle in the war of competing political philosophies today is the one being waged between proponents of large and small government.  Clifford Asness makes a sterling contribution to the latter in his essay, “The Way Forward for Republicans, Tea Partiers.”  A sample:

We must beat them by repeatedly making the hard arguments as to why liberty works and why it is the moral choice.

We must win by explaining, no matter how long it may take and hard it may be, that free people acting in a free market is what this country stands for, is the only ethical way to live, and happens to be the greatest anti-poverty and civil rights program on earth. This is harder than saying “here’s some free stuff, now vote for us forever or you’ll lose it.” But, it’s the right thing to do for America, and even the right thing to do politically. If the other party is trying to hook the American people by pushing drugs (entitlements and such) on them, we won’t win elections by pushing slightly less attractive drugs!

The disadvantage to this approach is, again, it’s far harder. It does not fit well in a sound bite. It requires faith in our audience. I think the American people are ready for it, and will reward the party that shares the truth with them. I think so no matter how much more complex the truth is than simpler feel-good lies.

It looks like Texas Governor Rick Perry isn’t the only state official who thinks the Obama Administration’s “Race to the Top” education funding competition is a game not worth the candle.  With 45 states participating, and 14 making the final round, only 2 states (Delaware and Tennessee) won.  The Department of Education also announced a cap on future awards – but not on federal requirements that follow the money – prompting several states to reconsider before reapplying.

But there is one benefit so far:

In Colorado, Van Schoales, executive director of Education Reform Now, a national advocacy group that supports Colorado’s participation in the competition, said the new award limit had strengthened the hand of teachers’ unions and rural school boards that, in opposing further participation, denounce federal intrusion.

“I’m surprised to see that there is a growing tide of people, an unholy alliance between unions and rural educators, who want us to say no to reapplying,” Mr. Schoales said.

If such an “unholy alliance” is what it takes to get states to kick their addiction to quick-fix federal dollars, so be it.

One of the curious things about business people turned political candidates is how much they retain the language of commerce, yet shuck its practice.  The best example is of self-funded multi-millionaires (or billionaires) spending gobs of their own money at an unsustainable clip while excoriating career politicians for being fiscally irresponsible.  Although you can’t run a government exactly like a business, the notion that spending should match revenue is perhaps the one financial concept that applies to any endeavor not operating on the barter system.

All of which makes a Republican candidacy like Meg Whitman’s for California governor so paradoxical.  Like her political mentor, Mitt Romney, Whitman is loaning her campaign tens of millions of dollars from her personal wealth to fund her run.  The money is going to support a top-notch staff, endless media buys in California, and a slick website.  It is not, apparently, attracting an equal amount of financial contributions from people with a different bank account.  So, in order to make it to the June primary, Whitman will have to cut herself another check.

That approach won’t fly as governor.  One of the chief criticisms of Whitman’s campaign narrative is that she can’t fire underperforming bureaucrats and politicians in Sacramento the way she did as CEO of Ebay.  Now, it looks like her candidacy can’t muster enough popular support to prop up her big spending ways.  Californians already have a political class accustomed to spending money without regard to sustainability.  It is a lesson with consequences they don’t need to learn from a governmental rookie.

Let me start by saying I don’t have anything against the Leader of the House Republicans, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH).  It’s just that I don’t have much of anything for him, either.  That’s not the case with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who’s constant stream of ideas and commentary should make House Republicans seriously consider elevating him to the Speakership if the GOP, as expected, wins a majority of seats in the midterm elections this November.

Check out this excerpt from Ryan’s column today:

We are challenged to answer again the momentous questions our Founders raised when they launched mankind’s noblest experiment in human freedom. They made a fundamental choice and changed history for the better. Now it’s our high calling to make that choice: between managed scarcity, or solid growth … between living in dependency on government handouts, or taking responsibility for our lives … between confiscating the earnings of some and spreading them around, or securing everyone’s right to the rewards of their work … between bureaucratic central government, or self-government … between the European social welfare state or the American idea of free market democracy.

What kind of nation do we wish to be? What kind of society will we hand down to our children and future generations? In the coming watershed election, the nature of this unique and exceptional land is at stake. We will choose one of two different paths. And once we make that choice, there’s no going back.

Add his impassioned floor speech before the final House vote on Obamacare, and his leadership with the Young Guns candidate recruitment effort, and Ryan is starting to look like the congressional Republican best suited to be the Washington counterweight to President Obama.  For conservatives who don’t think we can wait until January 2013 to inaugurate the next standard bearer, I hope we’re not overlooking the right guy in favor of the one who’s next in line.

With the ongoing write downs in the wake of Obamacare, and the appointment of two majority making union lawyers to the National Labor Relations Board, many in the private sector could be excused if they pine for the days when business was usual.  Add cap and trade to the mix, and it’s entirely possible that Progressives imagine profit to be just another word for unclaimed tax revenue.

So thank goodness for the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision restoring First Amendment speech rights to groups as well as individuals just in time for the 2010 midterm elections.  Since the Obama Administration is focused on several other toxic experiments in social engineering, any substantive legislative response to Citizens United is unlikely until next year.  Thank goodness.  In the meantime, businesses and the people who give them life have a unique opportunity to use their constitutional right to free speech in support of another pillar of the American Experiment: the free market.

One commercial I’d like to see features several different people providing the kinds of services that Progressives love to claim for government.  If you haven’t before, check out the concepts behind CVS’ MinuteClinic, the KIPP Academy, and Grameen America microfinance bank.  They and many others prove daily that – if given enough space – the free enterprise system is the quickest, best, and most sustainable way to enhance wealth and well being, for everyone.

Every once in a while, a commentator freezes a sentiment and perfectly describes it’s importance for the moment.  Daniel Henninger does that in his Wall Street Journal column today.  Taking the similar, yet unconnected strands of the Tea Party movement, constitutional challenges to Obamacare, and the widespread interest in the dormant power of the 10^th Amendment, he weaves together a simple warning letter to the Progressives running Washington and the MSM: a national referendum on the size of government is coming.  Expand at your peril.

In the next six weeks Britain will go the polls and most likely pry Gordon Brown’s fingers off the levers of power.  The Economist thinks his successor will be the Tory leader, David Cameron.  The magazine offers a closer look at the Conservative Party’s answer to Tony Blair.  Though Cameron takes many positions that suggest a taste for government intervention, he also seems to possess a subtle debt to Edmund Burke, the philosopher-politician who argued for tradition, order, and the importance of the family.

British society, so his critique goes, is broken. The cause is the erosion of responsibility (his favourite word) by a hyperactive state. He is at his most animated when justifying his (arguably overstated) social pessimism, pointing to “our records against the rest of Europe on things like teenage pregnancy and drug abuse, alcohol, family worklessness, educational problems”. The analysis is open to criticism: the societies he sees as unbroken, including many in continental Europe, spend more on welfare than he would want to or can afford to.

The cure, he says, is giving power away, strengthening local government and empowering people directly by, for example, letting them set up their own schools. He is undogmatic about the precise size of the state, deploring instead its over-centralisation; he prefers a big society to a big state. It remains to be seen whether that will bring relief to the overburdened public finances.

If he becomes the next British Prime Minister, David Cameron could do much to counter President Barack Obama’s juvenile treatment of America’s most important European ally.  If he expands his cultural critique into a governing philosophy that returns power to citizens, he’ll outshine The One on style and substance.

In their widely read book Nudge, authors Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler discuss the benefits of setting up policies in order to prod people towards making a certain decision.  For example, instead of installing an employee retirement program that requires workers to opt-in for contributions, make it so that they must opt-out.  Most people won’t know the difference until they get ready to retire and see each paycheck’s contribution matured into a nice nest egg thanks to the rule of 72.

Perhaps the lesson is emanating from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s new budget proposal.  The Manhattan Institute’s Josh Barro describes one of its pillars as capping local property taxes, but allowing local citizens to override the cap through targeted referendums.  Basically, if local officials can make a case for why they need more money, the people can give it to them.  The default option, though, is a hard cap.  Measures like Christie’s get the flow of political power right because it ensures We the People get the first and final say on tax rates.   If this is nudging, let’s push for more of it!