Freedom Line Blog

Here’s the latest screed from the princess of printed prattle, a writer so prone to histrionic hysteria (not to mention hysteron proterons — look it up) that her work bears the same relationship to thoughtfulness and rationality as a rhinocerous does to gracefulness:

[Paul Ryan puts] a fresh face on a Taliban creed — the evermore antediluvian, anti-women, anti-immigrant, anti-gay conservative core. Amiable in khakis and polo shirts, Ryan is the perfect modern leader to rally medieval Republicans who believe that Adam and Eve cavorted with dinosaurs…. But, for all the Republican cant about how they want to keep government out of the lives of others, the ultraconservatives are panting to meddle in the lives of others. Contrary to President Obama’s refreshing assertion Monday that a bunch of male politicians shouldn’t be making health care decisions for women, this troglodyte tribe of men and Bachmann-esque women craves that responsibility.

The writing sins there are abundant: extreme triteness (gee, it is just so original and clever to call conservatives “troglodytes” and “antediluvians” — although one does wonder, as a matter of chronology, how we can be troglodytes and “medieval” at the same time), breathless overstatement not as intentional irony but as an actual attempt at persuasion, and blind, over-broad, demonizing assertions unmoored from proof. Hers is the same genre of bigotry as the assertions by 1960s racists that because some blacks are criminals, all blacks are dangerous criminals. One wonders if she has ever actually attempted to have a cordial conversation with a conservative Christian of any denomination, with anybody who lives more than 25 miles from a major urban hub (unless said rural resident is a Cesar Chavez-type protester), or with somebody who doesn’t think that, say, serial adultery is an ordinary feature of most marriages. If so, she gives no evidence of it — because her screeds are pure bigotry against an entire class of people.

If the New York Times had any standards (perish the thought), it would not put up with such viciousness unmoored from reason or basic human decency. Next time the editorialists at the famous rag try to lecture the rest of us about “civility,” here’s hoping they choke and splutter on their fumes of their own outrageous hypocrisy.

If you were Todd Akin (R-MO), would you quit running for U.S. Senate?

After botching his response to a question about the legitimacy of abortion in cases of rape, Akin has been vilified by the Left, and told to drop out of the race by Mitt Romney, several Republican Senators, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and Crossroads GPS (the last two representing the two biggest spenders any GOP candidate could ask for).

Many people would have dropped out.  With the 6pm deadline to withdraw now passed, Akin is still in.

Of course his comments will narrow the 11 point advantage he was enjoying over incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill.  It will hurt fundraising.  And, if the NRSC and Crossroads GPS continue their new boycott of his campaign, Akin will have to figure out a way to get out his message in Missouri’s media markets without the help of his natural allies.

To be sure, his exit from the race makes obvious sense to anyone associated with him because of a shared party label.  If I were Mitt Romney or Massachusetts’ Scott Brown, I wouldn’t want to be dragged into conversations about what someone half a continent away said about an issue I’m not emphasizing in my race.

Still, I understand why Akin didn’t heed the calls to drop out.  There’s nothing in it for him.  If he leaves now his political career is over.  By winning the Senate primary he gave away his U.S. House seat.  Judging by the public comments from the party elite, no one is promising him a second act in a year or two with an uncontested run for state office.  Also, Akin seems to lack the connections to make a lucrative transition to the private sector.

Let’s say Akin had announced that for the good of Missouri and the party he was dropping out today.  What happens tomorrow?  For a guy who has spent the last 20+ years in elected office, campaigning and governing are what he does.

No, for Todd Akin, it’s either resurrect an imploding campaign or at least go down in defeat trying.

Who knows; maybe it’s all downhill from here…

William Kristol sums up the grassroots enthusiasm over the Paul Ryan pick:

Until last week, the Romney campaign was a few hundred operatives working hard in Boston trying to win a presidential election. Now Romney-Ryan is a groundswell of citizens spontaneously writing, volunteering, and proselytizing on behalf of a cause. The first was going to be a grueling uphill climb. The second could be more like running downhill with the wind at your back. Even in the second instance, of course, the candidate still has to jump the hurdles and avoid the obstacles. But it’s a lot easier to prevail when you stand for a cause citizens are eager to join than when you’re engaged in a campaign voters may diffidently support.

And it’s not just politically involved citizens who are energized by Ryan’s elevation to be Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate.

As Fred Barnes notes, the 87 House Republicans who won office in 2010 have helped heighten Ryan’s profile by supporting his budget reforms.  At least 70 of these are considered likely to be reelected this year, thus solidifying their importance in the caucus.  By putting their party on record as supporting Ryan’s vision, these House GOPers make Romney’s embrace of Ryan a clear legitimization of conservative, market-based reform.

Ryan is the linchpin.  Without him providing the bridge between the reform-minded conservatives in the House and the Romney campaign, it’s very likely that a Romney Administration would be reluctant to move on a policy package the candidate did not run on.  Now, Romney owns it.

Let the proselytizing continue.

This is notable.

Last week, we noted the unrestrained praise of Paul Ryan by prominent Democrats like Bill Clinton, Erskine Bowles and Oregon Senator Ron Wyden. Conversely, today brings criticism from Democratic Senator James Webb (Virginia) of the Obama Administration response to two years of Chinese aggression:

Over the past two years Japan and China have openly clashed in the Senkaku Islands, east of Taiwan and west of Okinawa, whose administration is internationally recognized to be under Japanese control. Russia and South Korea have reasserted sovereignty claims against Japan in northern waters. China and Vietnam both claim sovereignty over the Paracel Islands. China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia all claim sovereignty over the Spratly Islands, the site of continuing confrontations between China and the Philippines…

For all practical purposes China has unilaterally decided to annex an area that extends eastward from the East Asian mainland as far as the Philippines, and nearly as far south as the Strait of Malacca. China’s new ‘prefecture’ is nearly twice as large as the combined land masses of Vietnam, South Korea, Japan and the Philippines. Its ‘legislators’ will directly report to the central government.”

Senator Webb then criticizes our “muted” response in the face of Chinese expansionism:

In truth, American vacillations have for years emboldened China. U.S. policy with respect to sovereignty issues in Asian-Pacific waters has been that we take no sides, that such matters must be settled peacefully among the parties involved. Smaller, weaker countries have repeatedly called for greater international involvement.  China, meanwhile, has insisted that all such issues be resolved bilaterally, which means either never or only under its own terms. Due to China’s growing power in the region, by taking no position Washington has by default become an enabler of China’s ever more aggressive acts.”

The Obama Administration’s behavior comes as no surprise to conservatives, given Obama’s lifelong inclination to vote “present” in the face of tough choices.  The fact that Democrats so openly criticize him, however, must come as troubling news to the spin machine in Chicago.

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00 p.m. CDT (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EDT) on Northwest Florida’s 1330 AM WEBY, as she hosts her radio show, “Your Turn: Meeting Nonsense with Commonsense.”  Today’s guest lineup includes:

4:00 (CDT)/5:00 pm (EDT):  Quin Hillyer, CFIF Senior Fellow: V.P. Candidate Paul Ryan and the State of the Race;

4:30 (CDT)/5:30 pm (EDT):  Superintendent Tim Wyrosdick, Santa Rosa County Schools: Back in Session;

5:00 (CDT)/6:00 pm (EDT):  Michael Maharrey, National Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center: State Sovereignty;  and

5:30 (CDT)/6:30 pm (EDT):  Bruce Herschensohn, Pepperdine Senior Fellow, Author and CFIF Board Member: “Obama’s Globe: A President’s Abandonment of US Allies Around the World.”

Listen live on the Internet here.   Call in to share your comments or ask questions of today’s guests at (850) 623-1330.

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.

The Huffington Post summarizes a new Moody’s Investor Service report that could significantly alter municipal California’s fiscal future:

Moody’s reports that some cities are turning bankruptcy as a new strategy to take on budget deficits and avoid obligations to bondholders, an emerging dynamic that could have ripple effects throughout the investment community.

The municipal bond market has long been characterized by low default rates and relatively stable finances, Moody’s said, but that outlook is beginning to change as bankruptcy becomes a tool for cash-strapped cities.

Already three California cities – Stockton, San Bernardino, and Mammoth Lakes – have filed for bankruptcy.  HuffPo quotes Moody’s as saying that of California’s 482 cities, more than 10 percent have declared a fiscal crisis.

Historically, municipal bonds have been some of the safest investments on the market because cities are presumed by analysts to want to pay back their debt in order to maintain access to public bonds.  (Bonds pay for things like school buildings, roads, sewage systems, etc.)

Since California is responsible for 20 percent of the nationwide muni bonds in circulation, a downgrade by a ratings agency like Moody’s would have a significant negative effect on the value of heretofore safe investments.  If investors see California as an unsafe bet – and why wouldn’t they – expect to see the muni bond market dry up and even more cities opting for bankruptcy.

In other words, this is very bad.

As part of CFIF’s ongoing State Sovereignty Project, Renee Giachino this week shines a spotlight on Heroes of Federalism.

Politico reports that Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) will play the part of Paul Ryan as Vice President Joe Biden prepares for his one and only debate with the Wisconsin Republican.

While Van Hollen – the politically savvy ranking Democrat on Ryan’s House Budget Committee – will no doubt do a fine job, I’m more than a bit surprised to learn that Biden even prepares for such things like a debate.  The good ole’ Joe we’ve come to know – “They’ll put ya’ll back in chains!” – just doesn’t strike me as the kind of person who thinks much before he speaks.

My guess is that won’t change even with all the time and money spent on coaches, policy briefs, and poll-tested responses.  Joe is who he is: an emotive liberal who shoots from the lip.  His advantage, of course, is that everyone has incredibly low expectations for him; especially now that he’s going up against Paul Ryan, the universally acclaimed number one intellectual public official in the Republican Party.

If Ryan hammers Biden or makes him look out of touch, well, we expect that.  But if Biden gets Ryan flustered or slides in a good line (even if it’s a non sequitur), then the media will declare him the upset winner.

My guess is that Ryan plays it straight and banks on Biden making an unforced error before confirming the widespread hunch that Biden is out of his depth.  Biden’s history makes that a safe bet.

In the words of the Pew Research Center, “No issue relating to business is more politically divisive than the impact of government regulation.”

According to a new Pew survey, 76% of Republicans believe that government regulation of business tends to do more harm than good, but only 41% of Democrats agree.  That’s an enormous 35% difference, but the poll reveals something even more interesting.  Namely, 58% of independents side with Republicans on that question, not Democrats.  Another interesting point from the survey, according to Pew:

Fully 72% of Americans agree that ‘the strength of this country today is based on the success of American business.’ This opinion has endured, largely unchanged, for the past quarter century.”

That’s bad news for Barack “You Didn’t Build That!” Obama and his class warfare campaign theme.

In an interview with CFIF, Bryan Goettel, Director of Communications for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Hiring Our Heroes program, discusses the nationwide grassroots initiative to help veterans and military spouses find employment in the private sector.

Listen to the interview here.

Fox News reports that thanks to President Barack Obama’s unilateral – and unconstitutional – implementation of the DREAM Act, nearly 2 million illegal immigrants will be coming out of the shadows and proudly telling government officials about their status:

Young illegal immigrants are lining up by the thousands at consulates across the country to take advantage of the Obama administration program allowing them to apply for a two-year reprieve from deportation.

As many as 1.8 million undocumented immigrants could be eligible for the program, which kicked off Wednesday. Under the new rules, applicants can fill out a six-page form, pay a $465 fee and submit documents proving their identity in order to qualify.

Immigration officials say the documents will be closely scrutinized, given the potential for fraud, but there is no uniform standard. Applicants are supposed to show they arrived in the U.S. before they were 16, and that they’re enrolled in school or vocational training, or have a high school degree.

The lines began forming on Tuesday, as illegal immigrants tried to get a leg up in seeking their passport applications.

…

The crowds Tuesday and Wednesday are the most visible demonstration to date of how many people are interested in applying for the administration’s new reprieve program — which is effectively a version of the DREAM Act, which failed to clear Congress.

You read that right.  The Obama Administration’s reprieve amnesty program is based on legislation that never became law.

I support reform of America’s immigration system, and I’m open to some of the elements of the DREAM Act; especially the way it ties military service to citizenship.

What I object to is the Obama Administration’s brazen and arguably illegal implementation of a law that Congress considered and failed to pass.  Acting as though the DREAM Act is law when it isn’t is, quite simply, lawless.

House Speaker John Boehner got himself in hot water last night when he appeared to be saying that people who opposed TARP were knuckle-draggers. I think it is very fair to assume, on close examination, that he did not mean, nor does he believe, that to be the case.

I explain the whole thing here.

The key new thing to report is the clarifying statement I received from the Speaker’s office, which responded with admirable promptness:

“The Speaker said Paul Ryan is a practical conservative, and that Paul Ryan is not a knuckledragger.  He did not say those who opposed TARP are knuckledraggers, and he does not believe TARP opponents are knuckledraggers.  He did not say tea partiers are knuckledraggers, and he does not believe tea partiers are knuckledraggers.  To the contrary, he has enormous respect for the tea party movement, which reflects the will of the American people and their desire for a government that respects our Constitution.  Whether you supported or opposed TARP, we all can agree the crony capitalist philosophy of forcing responsible taxpayers to subsidize irresponsible behavior – perpetuated and perfected under President Obama – has wrecked our economy, and has to end.”

Dave Schnittger

Deputy Chief of Staff

Office of the Speaker

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

 View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.

I’ve written before that the importance of Paul Ryan’s brand of conservative reform is that it puts federal policy on a fundamentally different trend line than its current course under President Barack Obama.

From Ryan’s perspective, the American future post-reform looks like one where there’s more money in everyone’s pocket, less going to the government, and a fiscally sustainable social safety net.

As for President Obama, all you need to know is contained in his campaign’s “Life of Julia” web ad.

If Ryan is true to form, then during his time as Mitt Romney’s running mate he’ll accentuate the choice facing voters this fall of an American future that is either growing thanks to a resurgent capitalism or declining under the weight of a galloping socialism.  Perhaps he’ll do so along the lines described by Harvard economist Robert Barro in the Wall Street Journal:

Drawing correct policy implications is hard because one naturally focuses on the jobs and production that are directly saved or lost when the government bails out GM or when Chinese imports expand. In contrast, it is impossible to detail where U.S. jobs and production would have been created or destroyed if GM had been allowed to fail or if trade with China were curtailed.

What is feasible is to look at the overall impact of a set of policies. For example, a general increase in socialistic policies tends to lower economic growth. And, more specifically, the Obama administration’s weakening of individual incentives to work and produce by its sharp expansion of transfer payments can be reasonably viewed as retarding the U.S. economic recovery since the end of the recession in 2009.

With the addition of conservative thinker and budget expert Rep. Paul Ryan to the Republican presidential ticket, we can hope that the economic dialogue will become more serious. And perhaps this added substance will extend beyond the important issue of long-term fiscal reform to encompass the enduring but still crucial debate about socialism versus capitalism.

At the American Spectator I remind everybody that Paul Ryan’s central Medicare feature has Democratic provenance. I sum up here:

In truth, honest liberals from academia, journalism, think tanks, and political offices alike have consistently supported versions of Personal Health Grants for a decade and a half. There is nothing radical about the idea. Similarly, Ryan’s suggestions for Medicaid are based directly on the successes of welfare reform in 1996 — signed and claimed credit for thereafter by Clinton. Ryan’s proposals for domestic discretionary spending also are perfectly in line with what was envisioned in Clinton’s second-term budgets (adjusted for inflation). Ryan’s ideas aren’t anywhere near the outer edges of mainstream thought; they aren’t penurious, but merely sober.

But wait, there’s more.  I also gave some marketing advice, including a better name for “premium support” (either Personal Health Grants” or “Insurance Assistance”). As it turns out, there is even BETTER advice on the same subject from my friends Deroy Murdock and Jim Guirard, more than a year ago:

Jim Guirard, long-time chief of staff to the late Sen. Russell Long (D., La.), runs the TrueSpeak Institute (TrueSpeak.org). He advises the GOP to market “MediChoice.” Unlike the head-scratching that “premium support” inspires, MediChoice signals that Republicans would give seniors choice in medical coverage. Just as the GI Bill helps veterans pay tuition at schools that match their interests, MediChoice would help future Medicare recipients (now 54 or younger) buy coverage that suits their circumstances.

Guirard urges Republicans to call today’s Medicare system “MediCrash.”

Good stuff.

Ashton’s post yesterday brings up an important point about the Obama Administration’s handling of Medicare. The worst aspect of the cuts he cites, however, is the complete duplicity of the math involved. Basically, the Administration has attempted to claim the same money both as savings and expenditures. The best interpretation is total mathematical illiteracy. The worst is accounting fraud.

Paul Ryan ripped the Administration for this in his famous showdown with the president at the Blair House health care summit in 2010. For an even more bracing version of this dispute, see this exchange between Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL) and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, in which the Secretary, having reached a fork in the road, takes it:

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.

I’ll add my voice of support to the chorus here, and say I think Paul Ryan is an inspired choice to be Mitt Romney’s running mate.  One of the benefits of selecting Ryan, is that Romney gives conservatives a chance to articulate the dramatically different trend lines between the parties when it comes to reforming Medicare.

Under ObamaCare, $700 million is ripped out of an already teetering Medicare system to pay for new entitlements.  By contrast, Ryan’s reform grandfathers current seniors while converting Medicare into a voucher program for younger Americans.  Whereas ObamaCare creates new spending commitments with the same pile of money – thus spiking deficits – Ryan’s reform (and by extension, Romney’s) caps Medicare’s subsidy at a level that makes federal spending more sustainable over the long haul.

The campaign just got serious.  I’m looking forward to the next 12 weeks.