Freedom Line Blog

For those of you looking for more information about groups that connect and fund fiscally responsible congressional candidates, be sure to check out the Independence Caucus and The Freshman 50 PAC.  I-Caucus was the driving force behind defeating an incumbent Republican congressman with a fiscally conservative primary opponent, while The Freshman 50 is aiming to elect fifty new members of Congress to stop deficit spending.  Both groups are unaffiliated with any political party.  This election cycle, independents are not only the most important voters – they’re also becoming the most important grassroots organizers.

H/T: Jed Babbin at Human Events

According to CNN, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) winning the CPAC presidential straw poll was a surprise. Since CNN had no presence at CPAC, it probably did catch producers at the Clinton News Network off guard. But for anyone who actually attended the three day event it was anything but. By several estimates, one in five attendees were twentysomething libertarian-leaning enthusiasts. Almost all of these supported Paul, and many could be seen passing out push-cards for his group, Campaign for Liberty. To a person, they were by far the most excited, most hopeful CPAC participants, and accounted for most of the energetic turnaround from last year’s funeral-like atmosphere.

Undoubtedly, most of these would also represent the low-tax, off-my-back Tea Party movement. However, it is striking to consider that the most dynamic speakers at CPAC – J.C. Watts, Newt Gingrich, and Glenn Beck – all took turns focusing on the cultural roots of the current political crisis. Watts claimed that it is impossible to understand America without first understanding the importance of God. Gingrich reminded listeners that most of the policy problems in Washington would not be fully solved until everyday Americans took more responsibility for their choices. And Beck passionately emphasized the growing lack of hard work as the primary impediment to expanding wealth and success. While each message isn’t necessarily at odds with the individualist outlook espoused by Paul’s libertarian supporters, focusing on cultural decline implies both a hierarchy of values and the need for a communal response.

Going forward, it will be interesting to see whether the libertarian argument for less government can be positively fused with the conservative push for a stronger, more united civil society. If so, the Right could be on its way to establishing not just a political majority this year; it could also create a cultural one too.

During a presidency characterized by vapid rhetoric, it is inspiring to consider the ongoing discussion among movement conservatives to define themselves with statements of substance.  Glenn Beck outlined the 9 principles and 12 values animating the Tea Party set.  Newt Gingrich is calling for a new Contract with America.  Members of the Religious Right are nearing a million signatures for the Manhattan Declaration.  RNC Chairman Michael Steele is promoting a 10 point Republican checklist.  And on the eve of this week’s CPAC Convention, several prominent conservative leaders will sign and publish the Mount Vernon Statement.

All of this is good.  Each document shows that the Right is driven by ideas about the human person, society, and government.  All of these statements attempt to bring together an understanding of our nation’s founding principles with an application of them to the current era.  In its own way, each affirms the conservative belief that first principles need not be held hostage to recurring problems masquerading as new crises.  That there is disagreement, even bitterness, is good because from it comes a more definite understanding of a coherent political philosophy.  So, the next time you read about the “conservative crack-up,” read one of these documents and delight in the knowledge only one of the two major movements in this country has the courage – and the ability – to argue about first principles.

The Golden State may now be the world’s largest banana republic.  After being approved by the state Senate, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s pick to be Lieutenant Governor didn’t receive enough votes in the state Assembly to secure approval or rejection.  The result spawned name calling, threats of constitutional litigation, and the possibility that Schwarzenegger would seat his nominee personally and dare legislators to oppose him.  He has since backed down and will re-nominate his candidate, thus restarting the process.

At this point, why not pistols at dawn?  Anyone killed or unable to work thereafter wouldn’t be replaced, thus thinning the cancerous governmental herd feasting on tax dollars.

As the reasons for Senator Evan Bayh’s (D-IN) decision not to run for re-election this year trickle out, it sounds like the life-long politician has learned that the private sector – not government – is the engine that drives human prosperity. When asked today about his future plans, Bayh responded:

“But if I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months. If I could help educate our children at an institution for higher learning, that would be a noble thing. If I could help a charity, cure a disease or do something else worthwhile for society — that’s what has motivated my life and that’s what I think Congress needs to focus on, things that will help the American people meet the challenges they face in real ways in their daily lives. That’s what I want to do with my life. And if you’ll invite me back on your show in 11 months, I’ll be able to tell you!”

Although it is too bad Bayh won’t be in Congress spreading that message, the Republic is strengthened if even just one Democrat can learn the truth about where true fulfillment lies.

Every once in a while, there is an article so good, it’s almost an injustice to splice any part of it for fear a reader won’t take the hyperlink and read the whole thing. Thankfully, Freedom Line Blog readers aren’t those types, but just to whet the appetite, here is a sample from an op-ed dissecting why government can never “reform” healthcare pricing.

Healthcare prices are fake, inflexible, and inflated because they are set not by the repeated interactions of buyers and sellers but by opaque acts of collusion between government bureaucrats and special interests. Even if this system were run by a benevolent genius who happened to set prices exactly “right” – whatever that means – these prices would be obsolete the moment they were published.

I don’t know the author, Bill Frezza, but I wish I did. A hat tip to you, Sir.

At a time when governments at every level are confronted with the need to deliver services with less money, one Utah legislator is proposing a novel idea: encourage high school kids to graduate early.  The logic is simple enough: if students complete their graduation requirements a year early, they should have the option to graduate.  While the solution makes sense, it should require a broader rethinking of how education is structured.

Currently, most school districts receive funding based on the number of students in average daily attendance.  Thus, the way to get the most money is to have the most students on campus.  Unfortunately, that can create a perverse incentive to make it difficult for students who would otherwise graduate early, or leave campus during the day to take college courses.  While it makes sense to fund schools in proportion to the numbers in their student body, it is ridiculous to penalize schools when students want to accelerate their education.  Instead, schools should be rewarded for helping students graduate early.  Not only would the graduation of the 11^th grade “senior” free up a seat, it would help to reorient the educational system back to its primary goal: educating the individual student.

And the Democratic retirements just keep coming! Even though a Daily Kos poll showed Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) with a 20 point lead over former Republican Senator Dan Coats, Bayh announced today that he will not seek re-election this year. With Coats now the odds-on frontrunner, one has to wonder if Congressman Mike Pence is regretting his decision to stay in the House of Representatives instead of challenging Bayh.

Getting back to Bayh, since he has the third most cash of any senator up for re-election this year and has never lost a political contest, I wonder if this recent hit from the Left persuaded him that there isn’t much of a constituency for a self-styled moderate Democrat. It’s one thing to be hit from the Right for not being conservative enough, but when the activists and the money people in your own party start hammering you for not carrying enough water for an increasingly unpopular liberal agenda, well, Bayh can probably find better things to do. Unlike Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh isn’t willing to save the Democratic Party from itself by running in spite of its base.

According to an article in the New York Times, only James K. Polk is a consensus top-tier (great or near great) one-term president.  All the others (e.g. Lincoln, Washington, FDR) won multiple terms.  Polk ranks so high because he actually accomplished his stated goals before voluntarily retiring: reduce tariffs; create an independent treasury; and establish American control of California and most of the Oregon Territory.  Though each was very difficult to achieve, Polk did.

Now consider President Obama’s pledge to be a one-term president, even if it means pursuing the “right” policies for America, despite a majority of Americans opposing him.  Such a statement misreads Polk’s lesson.

All this suggests a false dichotomy underlying Mr. Obama’s expressed resolve to render his presidential decisions without regard to his re-election chances — as if the choice were between political popularity and governmental success. A better approach for any chief executive is to assume that, in presidential politics, as in retailing, the customer is always right, and that the electorate’s verdict will be consonant with history’s consensus. Thus, the aim of every historically minded president, Mr. Obama included, should be to pursue a second term by bundling up voter sentiment into a collection of policies and programs that succeed in the crucial areas most on the minds of the American people.

Mr. Obama can certainly anticipate a one-term fate if he gets crosswise with his citizens. And if that happens, it isn’t likely that on future President’s Days he will ever be remembered as a great chief executive.

John Ellis (no relation) has a terrific op-ed today at Real Clear Politics. Taking a step (or rather, several steps) back from tactical issues like how Democrats can better communicate their policies, or which Republican newcomer is best suited to run for president, Ellis points his rhetorical finger at the real issue driving Tea Party-type angst. He labels it a two step issue: the Reckoning and the Restructuring. The first is confronting the mountain of national debt and spending; the second is deciding how to get it under control. On the latter point, Ellis has some thought provoking comments.

The Reckoning requires restructuring. Restructuring is not avoidable, it is inevitable. The sooner we do it, the less painful it will be for all concerned. Specifically, we must decide how to make our pension system (Social Security) and our current national health care system (Medicare and Medicaid) sustainable. We must restructure our debt. We must get 15% more performance out of our military on 15% less budget. We must get 25% more performance out of all other government services on 25% less expenditure.

In addition, we need to think about what taxes to raise, whether we sell land, whether we acquire nation-states or territories (Africa states? Siberian land?), whether we merge with Canada to form a more robust (and energy independent) mega-nation. These are the big issues of US restructuring. And they are all on the table.

Except they are not. The Obama Administration keeps talking at us like its 1998 and we can have a “green” jobs program and national health insurance and “cap and trade” legislation and $250 million criminal proceedings for homicidal Islamic psychopaths in downtown Manhattan. We don’t have $250 million for the KSM trial in Manhattan. Everybody knows that except, apparently, the Obama Administration.

Putting aside merging with Canada or national annexation, the absence of this kind of serious discussion is unworthy of a president who sees himself as an historic figure willing to be a one-term executive if it means accomplishing something great (and hard). Taking on the Reckoning and the Restructuring would certainly qualify.

According to Politico, the White House thinks dispatching Vice President Joe Biden to rebut Dick Cheney on tomorrow’s Sunday talk shows will make the Obama Administration look good.  Joe’s funny, but he’s no Dick Cheney.  Too bad the former VP won’t have the opportunity to debate Biden head-on, like he did in 2004 with John Edwards.  If you’d like a reminder, here’s the link.

In today’s Wall Street Journal, blogger Glenn Reynolds makes an interesting observation about attendees at the recent Tea Party Convention in Nashville.

Press attention focused on Sarah Palin’s speech, which was well-received by the crowd. But the attendees I met weren’t looking to her for direction. They were hoping she would move in theirs. Right now, the tea party isn’t looking for leaders so much as leaders are looking to align themselves with the tea party.

Indeed.  Republican leaders would do well this election cycle to figure out how to get GOP candidates co-opted into the Tea Party movement, not the other way round.  Unlike many voters, tea partiers aren’t looking for a candidate to sell them on an idea; they want a candidate who is going to implement the Tea Party creed.

Remember Erroll Southers?  He was President Barack Obama’s nominee to be the chief of the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA), the agency in charge of security at all the nation’s airports.  If approved, he would have been the point man for installing full body scan machines for every passenger to walk through.  Yet, he withdrew his nomination last month after it surfaced that twenty years ago as an FBI agent he illegally accessed information about his ex-wife’s boyfriend.  By all accounts he was a model security professional before and after the incident, but introduce a personal motive, and even the best people may play a dangerous game with our privacy.

Once again, Britain provides a case study.  Recently, an Indian film star discovered the failures of a government-run failsafe system.  Immediately after participating in a mandatory full body scan at London’s Heathrow airport, Shahrukh Khan saw two female security workers printing out a picture with detailed outlines of his manhood on display.  The event gave the lie to assurances by the British government that no scanned information would be saved or printed.  Though irritated, he made light of the matter and autographed the paper.  The rest of us should take note.

It is darkly ironic that at a time when most Americans are disgusted with the lack of transparency from their government, their government is lusting after more transparency from its people.

The arbitrary love a vacuum, so when they find one, the temptation to fill it with inanity usually proves too great. Consider the case of Gloria Navarro. By all accounts, she is an accomplished Nevada attorney whose work as a public defender and prosecutor has won her a presidential nomination to be a federal district judge. While I suspect her judicial philosophy is to the left of Clarence Thomas, I nonetheless acknowledge that she is “qualified” to serve on the bench, if by that term it means owning a bar license and practicing as an attorney. Then again, those are my requirements, not the Constitution’s. While the nation’s fundamental law details the age and citizenship requirements for the president and members of Congress, it has no specific qualifications for being a federal judge.

But don’t tell that to the politicians who impose them nonetheless. Since adult conversations about judicial philosophy are off the table, most presidents and senators resort to indirect indicia of competency like schools attended, grades earned, and clients represented. Some demand judicial experience. Others, like Senator Harry Reid with Navarro, prefer “real world” (i.e. non-judicial) experience when it suits their nominee.

In fact, there’s more than a tinge of bias against attorneys who didn’t hit their professional stride until well after beginning the practice of law. To hear politicians and pundits, unless a lawyer’s resume includes Ivy League credentials and a federal clerkship followed by a career serving the upper echelons of government and mammon, a president shouldn’t even bother with a nomination. Yet, these types of opportunities depend on a level of access that is unattainable for most people in their teens and twenties. It is almost as if the comparatively unfettered ability to rise in the political and economic realms must be compensated for when it comes to peopling the bench. Though many in the academy lionize him, few spend much time discussing the fact that Robert Jackson rose to prominence and then the Supreme Court without having trodden the golden path of law review, clerkship, and partner.

All of which makes the American Bar Association’s judicial rating system seem like an exercise in subjective grading. When a nominee’s rating depends on the make-up of a particular committee, the resulting scores have all the marks of a high school prom vote. Like an American Idol panel, an ABA process does not (and perhaps, cannot) employ a consistent standard for judging someone “qualified” when there are no concrete qualifications to use.

Instead of weighting a “qualified” rating towards accomplishments clustered at the beginning of a career, the ABA should reward nominees that have made significant contributions to the practice or study of law. After all, a good judge is someone who appreciates both the realities of legal practice, and the history, philosophy, and structure of the American Constitutional order. Lawyers serving as judges should have a breadth of experience and a depth of knowledge. If that sounds too much like the exceptional being the enemy of the competent, it is. But it emphasizes the accomplishments earned over a career, not standardized test scores. Be not afraid; there are more than enough attorneys to “qualify” under such a standard. It just may take a little extra work to find them.

Hopefully, the Obama Administration will come to the same realization its predecessor did and chuck the pretense that a professional cartel like the ABA can be objective. Like any advisor, when the ABA stopped providing useful information it was rightly fired. With one of President Obama’s own nominees getting less respect than her achievements deserve, now would be a good time to make the break permanent. Maybe then competent attorneys like Navarro can move past debates about qualifications to more serious matters: like whether her judicial philosophy squares with the Constitution itself.

A few years ago, in more innocent times, I decided to find and read all the “non-partisan” government reports in order to get a better handle on the details of policy.  When I asked a friend of mine who worked in D.C. for recommendations on where to start, he said, “Don’t.  There aren’t any unbiased reports because they’re all consensus documents created to support a political agenda.”  Even the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review?!  “Yes,” came the reply.

Any doubt in my mind was erased after reading that the military’s most recent review designates “climate change” as a national security threat.  (Small digression: I thought progressives like Obama got votes in the presidential campaign for scoring Republicans on being the Party of Fear.  Now, every issue from childhood obesity to global warming is a threat akin to a terrorist attack.)

Maybe bureaucratic sclerosis is to blame since the parts dealing with climate change are based on the same faulty evidence in the now discredited report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  If that’s the case, though, that means the Obama suits writing the top brass’s most important self-assessment are not only wrong, they’re outdated.  My guess is the odds of this section being the only one with glaring deficiencies is pretty low.  Thank you, Washington, for creating another report unworthy of reading.

H/T: National Review Online

Anyone needing a reminder that the government’s idea of enhanced security is destroying personal privacy should read this article from CNET. Soon, a federal appeals court will hear oral arguments about whether law enforcement agencies like the FBI have the authority to demand information giving the physical location of a person’s cell phone from telecom companies without a warrant. According to the Obama Administration, people using cell phones don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they use items like a cell phone. The rationale is that when you share information with another person or entity, you forfeit your Fourth Amendment rights.  And since the cell company keeps a record of the transmission tower you link to when calling, all the government needs to do to check on your whereabouts is “ask” the company for it’s records.

So, fair warning: the next time you call Aunt Agnes from your cell phone, Uncle Sam will be “asking” your wireless provider for your whereabouts. But remember – it’s for your protection.

So, maybe the progressive elites currently running the federal government aren’t insane so much as handicapped.  A new study finds that people with a certain type of brain lesion are less inhibited to take extreme risks with money than those with brains functioning normally.

They studied two women with a rare genetic condition called Urbach-Wiethe disease, which damages the amygdala, the almond-shaped center in the brain that controls fear and certain other acute emotions.

The researchers compared the women’s responses to 12 people with undamaged brains. They noted this kind of study usually involves only a few people as it is not possible or ethical to deliberately damage a person’s brain to see what happens.

The volunteers were asked to make gambles in which there was an equal probability they would win $20 or lose $5 (a risk most people will take) — or would win or lose $20 (one most people will reject).

The two patients with damaged amygdalas fearlessly risked a $50 pot.

The researchers concluded that “this shows that the amygdale is critical for triggering a sense of caution toward making gambles in which you might lose.”  But how about those occasions when you know a certain decision will lose money?  Like, for example, intentionally proposing a $1.3 trillion budget deficit?  Or pushing a health care “reform” bill taxing citizens for years before it starts delivering care?  Or how about imposing an energy tax on carbon emissions with the primary effect being less economic output?

Thanks to this study, there is finally a rational explanation for such behavior: Democratic leaders may have brain lesions.  Whew!  Here I thought they were insane; turns out they’re just suffering from a diseased brain.

They do in Britain if the subject of the security scan is under 18. As for everybody else, it looks like Heathrow personnel are taking their time deleting near naked images of celebrities like India’s Shahrukh Khan. Even more troubling, they may be printing and sharing them.

Who knew people charged with security would abuse their power in such a way?! Especially since they work for the government! It’s almost as if the people working at airport checkpoints are the same type of folks who would illegally access confidential information about an ex-spouse’s new squeeze while working for the FBI.

The next time you hear a politician wax about the virtues of tax credits and special deals to lure in businesses, think about this home state businessman’s frustration with the practice in Michigan.

“Our legislators are busy voting on tax credits to a myriad of targeted industries, hoping that one of these ‘new-economy’ firms will save our state from collapse,” protests Bill Jackson of the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce. “Isn’t it time government puts an end to picking winners and losers and gives every Michigan job provider a ‘tax credit’?”

Indeed.  The logic is undeniable.  If lower taxes are good for one business, why aren’t they good for all?  They are, but that isn’t the point.  For progressives like Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm and her colleagues in the Democratic Party, legislating through the tax code is business as usual; especially if it allows them to prop up companies and industries that align with progressive dogma of a “green” economy.  In reality, the kinds of tax incentives aren’t breaks; they’re exercises in fiscal discrimination.   Once again, when it comes to finance and the economy, progressives have positions, free marketers have principles.  It really is that simple.

H/T: National Review Online

The chief knock on President Obama’s congressional management style is that he doesn’t have one. From the stimulus bill to health care “reform,” The One and advisors like David Axelrod are amazingly “aloof,” “disengaged,” or as Senator Al Franken (D-MN) put it in a closed door session this week, unwilling to provide leadership on how to close a deal. Franken was responding to Obama’s call to “finish the job” after which the latter gave no indication how to do it. According to reports, Franken’s frustration was shared by other senators.

The president’s hands-off approach seems odd for two reasons. First, it’s unusual for any politician to deflect an opportunity to take center stage, especially when the praise of passage would accrue to him. The other reason is that Obama is a Saul Alinsky disciple well versed in the master community organizer’s chief work, “Rules for Radicals.” One of the tenets of the book is “never go outside the experience of your people.” For a Democratic Senate without the presence of the late Ted Kennedy, that means don’t bank on any of the remaining 59 senators being able to negotiate and pass landmark legislation. None of them have a track record for doing it.

Then again, neither does Obama. The cold reality for activists like Franken is that those put in charge by the Left don’t have the experience, and frankly the ability, to get major legislation passed. That Ted Kennedy did so for decades without inspiring any of his fellow Democrats to take notes speaks to the single-minded emphasis of progressive strategists on getting power instead of figuring out how to use it. Republicans should take heed: it’s not enough to win because thereafter, you have to govern.