Freedom Line Blog

If there’s one controlling lesson after three years of the Obama Administration, it’s this: watch what he does, not what he says.

For all of his pieities about being a serious education reformer, Obama has time and again cast his lot with the liberal teachers unions that are perhaps the biggest threat to opportunity for the nation’s underprivileged children. This trend showed up early in his presidency, when he attempted to bleed Washington D.C.’s school voucher program by prohibiting new entrants. Apparently, hope and change wasn’t an offer for poor, overwhelmingly minority students in some of the nation’s worst schools.

Thanks to the efforts of Republicans in Congress, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is back in action. But under President Obama’s new budget proposal released yesterday, it would be zeroed out. What makes clear that this is a shameless gift to special interests is how decisively the facts weigh in favor of the program. Consider this, from the Heritage Foundation’s Lindsey Burke:

The D.C. OSP has been highly successful. According to federally-mandated evaluations of the program, student achievement has increased, and graduation rates of voucher students have increased significantly. While graduation rates in D.C. Public Schools hover around 55 percent, students who used a voucher to attend private school had a 91 percent graduation rate.

And at $8,000, the vouchers are a bargain compared to the estimated $18,000 spent per child by D.C. Public Schools.

Better outcomes at lower costs. A new generation of young minority students who don’t believe that life ends at 18. And the first reaction of the President of the United States is to see how fast this innovation can be smothered. Many of Obama’s positions can be challenged on the grounds of incorrectness or imprudence. This one, however, deserves disdain for its rank inhumanity.

My nominee for quote of the day goes to Texas Governor Rick Perry, writing in today’s Wall Street Journal on the absurdity of the Obama Administration’s “insufficient time” rationalization for rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline and the thousands of domestic jobs it would create:

Hoping to appease environmental radicals, President Obama said no, claiming that he didn’t have time to adequately consider the pipeline.  This despite the fact that the original request was made in September 2008, and Keystone was the subject of dozens of meetings on multiple levels of his own administration, as well as exhaustive environmental impact reviews.  Certainly, three-and-a-half years is more than enough time to make his decision.  His reasoning becomes even more laughable when you put it up against his massive, ill-conceived stimulus bill, which he muscled through Congress and signed within the first month of his presidency.”

Roll Call has a fascinating behind-the-scenes description of a liberal Super PAC acting as a “clearinghouse for opposition research” that gets repackaged as tips to media and fodder for Democratic campaigns.  That’s not the only bad news for conservatives:

The right does not have anything like it — a PAC serving as a clearinghouse for opposition research. And while liberals rail against the Supreme Court decision that ushered in this new breed of PAC that can accept unlimited donations from corporations and individuals, they agree that the existence of super PACs facilitates coordination between third-party groups.

The Super PAC in question, American Bridge 21^st Century, is the brainchild of Media Matters founder David Brock.  Brock, a conservative-journalist-turned-liberal-activist, has built an impressive network of for-profit and non-profit entities that is fast becoming a one-stop-shop for polling data, oppo research, and media angles.  It will be interesting to see how his empire impacts the 2012 election cycle.

How about it, denizens of the conservative movement?  Any takers on creating a conservative alternative to Brock’s standalone juggernaut?

In my commentary last week — focusing on the economic weaknesses of the Republican presidential candidates — I spent some time looking at Newt Gingrich’s enthusiasm for various energy subsidies, a pathology that he’s shared with much of the bipartisan establishment of the last decade or so. I noted in conclusion:

The Speaker is smart enough to know that the virtues of a free market apply to the energy industry just as much as any other. Fuel markets work best when consumers are making decisions based on price and quality, not when politicians are hand-picking energy sources to please favored constituencies.

This is just as true of conventional fuel sources like coal and oil as it is of boutique alternatives like hydrogen, wind, or solar. And it’s just as true whether it’s Democrats or Republicans giving the handouts. That’s why it’s so refreshing to see a group of Tea Party conservatives on Capitol Hill attempting to strip the crony capitalism from the energy industry. As Timothy P. Carney reports in the Washington Examiner:

Freshmen Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas has proposed the loftily titled “Energy Freedom and Economic Prosperity Act,” while the Senate’s Tea Party heroes, Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Mike Lee (Utah), have introduced the companion bill in the upper chamber.

The bill, which Pompeo hopes to insert into legislation extending the payroll-tax credit, would take a huge bite out of energy subsidies by eliminating tax credits for everything from solar panels and wind turbines to oil drilling and nuclear power generation. At the same time, the measure would cut tax rates.

…”This is the model,” Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist told me Friday. It gets rid of the hodgepodge of distorting credits that steer money away from productive energy investments and toward politically favored activities, and it also lowers everyone’s rates. Neutral, low taxes, conservatives have long argued, are the formula for prosperity and economic growth, not to mention fairness.

On this, Norquist is precisely right. By taking the federal government’s hand off the scales, this bill would allow energy providers to flourish or falter on the merits, rather than according to the size of their lobbying budgets. And by lowering tax rates, it would ensure that providing Americans with the energy they rely on to do everything from heating their homes to driving their cars would be both more profitable for producers and more affordable for consumers.

Pompeo is to be saluted for his courage. Now it falls to the American people to push for this bill’s passage. A wide array of energy industry lobbyists will be hell-bent on killing it. That’s just one more testimony in its favor.

J. Christian Adams has an eloquent commentary today on the import of the Obama Administration’s latest effort in its war against traditional Christianity, and on the resistance to it from well-motivated people of all faiths.

One key passage is here:

The real reason the White House was steamrolled is that the Left doesn’t understand what it is up against.  Rachel Maddow, for example, thinks people of faith oppose the Obama mandate because it provides “a convenient partisan cudgel to use against Democrats.”  To Maddow, profound religious conviction couldn’t explain the backlash.  Instead, “partisan cudgels” provide an explanation more familiar to her.

Consider further the always caustic and usually wrong Eric Boehlert of the Soros-funded Media Matters.  Boehlert says the fight with the churches “feels like 1962, we’re arguing over ‘birth control’ in 2012.”  Boehlert doesn’t understand this fight isn’t about birth control, but religious freedom.

Boehlert doesn’t understand that the usual Leftist tactic of mockery and ridicule won’t work on these opponents.  Name calling is nothing compared to what faith communities are willing to endure.

As many others have noted, the president’s “compromise” announced Friday is no compromise at all. It’s still an authoritarian violation of religious freedom. And it still is part of a larger war by the administration, one which, fortunately, it has been losing, as in the 9-0 shellacking the Supreme Court gave to Obama in the Hosanna-Tabor case.

This president has no regard for freedom, and none for traditional Christian or Jewish faith. He is dangerous. It’s a good thing, as Adams points out, that faith and freedom are not so easily cowed.

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.

As a companion must-read article to Tim’s column on the ObamaCare birth control mandate, John Cochrane of Cato explains why President Barack Obama’s proposed compromise to exempt church-related institutions misses the point:

Our nation is divided on social issues. The natural compromise is simple: Birth control, abortion and other contentious practices are permitted. But those who object don’t have to pay for them. The federal takeover of medicine prevents us from reaching these natural compromises and needlessly divides our society.

The critics fell for a trap. By focusing on an exemption for church-related institutions, critics effectively admit that it is right for the rest of us to be subjected to this sort of mandate. They accept the horribly misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and they resign themselves to chipping away at its edges. No, we should throw it out, and fix the terrible distortions in the health-insurance and health-care markets.

Sure, churches should be exempt. We should all be exempt.

In this week’s Freedom Minute, CFIF’s Renee Giachino discusses the dire need for meaningful tax reform – including lowering and simplifying the corporate tax rate – to make the U.S. more competitive in the global economy and put Americans back to work.

In an interview with CFIF, Congressman Paul Broun, M.D. (R-GA) discusses legislation he recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives — H.R. 3883, the Budget or Bust Act — that would help force Congress to pass an annual budget by withholding Members’ salaries hostage in an escrow account until a budget is passed.

Listen to the interview here.

In case you missed the news, the United States Postal Service — still clinging to the hope that e-mail thing is a fad — released yet another series of dismal financial numbers today. From the Hill:

The U.S. Postal Service announced Thursday that it lost $3.3 billion in the first three months of the fiscal year as the agency continues to hemorrhage money.

The majority of the losses, some $3.1 billion, occurred because the USPS had to pre-fund its retirement plan.

… The USPS might run up against its debt ceiling this fall, forcing action on the bills.

… [Congressman Darrell] Issa noted that USPS has said that even if it no longer needs to pre-fund its employee benefits, it will still reach its debt limit in the fall.

Keep in mind that the USPS lost $8.5 billion in 2010 and an estimated $9 billion last year. Rather than continuing the regular embarrassment of having the postal service show up on Capitol Hill rattling its tin cup, it’s time to embrace serious reform — in the form of privatization. As the Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards has written:

Reforms in other countries show that there is no good reason for the current mail monopoly. Since 1998, New Zealand’s postal market has been open to private competition, with the result that postage rates have fallen and labor productivity at New Zealand Post has risen. Germany’s Deutsche Post was partly privatized in 2000, and the company has improved productivity and expanded into new businesses. Postal services have also been privatized or opened to competition in Belgium, Britain, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Japan is moving ahead with postal service privatization, and the European Union is planning to open postal services to competition in all its 27 member nations.

Enough fiddling at the margins. America is a first-rate nation. We need not be delivering the mail with an efficiency traditionally reserved for the third world.

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.

Here’s Byron York’s recounting of what Rick Santorum’s camp thinks about a Romney advisor’s spin that more money and boots on the ground means that the former Massachusetts Governor will still win the GOP nomination:

After the returns came in, I asked Santorum spokesman Hogan Gidley what he thought about Rich Beeson’s message.  Sure, Santorum did well on Tuesday, but doesn’t Romney have the money and infrastructure to outdistance Santorum, and everyone else, in the long run?

“What an inspiring message,” Gidley said sarcastically.  “That is really inspiring.  I can’t wait to put a bumper sticker on my truck that says MONEY-INFRASTRUCTURE 2012.”

“No one had more money and infrastructure than Hillary Clinton, and hope and change wiped her off the map,” Gidley continued.  “We’ll have money, and we’ll have infrastructure, but our nominee has to have a message that people can get behind and inspires people.”

With all due respect to the job New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is doing, perhaps his popularity in haranguing the excesses of liberal spending is made easier by Dickensian villains like Vincent Giordano.  Giordano, the Director of the New Jersey Education Association (i.e. teacher’s union), had this exchange with a news anchor over the injustice of denying poor families vouchers to escape failing schools.

During the interview, he was challenged by the host on why low-income families should not have the same options as other families when their child is in a failing school.

“Those parents should have exactly the same options and they do. We don’t say that you can’t take your kid out of the public school. We would argue not and we would say ‘let’s work more closely and more harmoniously,'” Giordano said.

When told some families cannot afford to finance the shift to private school without government help, Giordano said: “Well, you know, life’s not always fair and I’m sorry about that.”

In full damage-control mode, Giordano’s union tried to spin his comments away from the obvious implication that poor families should stop whining and accept overfunded, underperforming schools so that people like Giordano can make a hefty paycheck (his topping $300k a year).  But even the spin doctors failed to explain how vouchers “take resources away from disadvantaged public schools and only exacerbate the challenges faced by students in those communities.”

It’s the people – not institutions – that are disadvantaged.  If the NJEA can’t be bothered to reform its work practices, then every student deserves a ticket away from it.

H/T: Fox News

The Heritage Foundation is out today with its 2012 Index of Dependence on Government, and the results aren’t pretty. The study finds that Americans are more in thrall to the state than ever before. Amongst the report’s findings:

One in five Americans—the highest in the nation’s history—relies on the federal government for everything from housing, health care, and food stamps to college tuition and retirement assistance. That’s more than 67.3 million Americans who receive subsidies from Washington.

Government dependency jumped 8.1 percent in the past year, with the most assistance going toward housing, health and welfare, and retirement.

The federal government spent more taxpayer dollars than ever before in 2011 to subsidize Americans. The average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748, more than the nation’s average disposable personal income ($32,446).

At the same time, nearly half of the U.S. population (49.5 percent) does not pay any federal income taxes.

There are three tragedies at work here. The first is that the federal government — through relentless taxation, regulation, and legislation — has kept the economy in such miserable condition as to necessitate so many people looking for assistance. The second is that so many sectors that enjoy public subsidies — such as higher education and health care — are actually made more expensive by the federal largesse. And the third is the broader social trend of Americans coming unmoored from the independent, self-made spirit of our forebears, content instead to live in a gilded cage to which Washington holds the key.

Changing that mindset will be just as important as changing public policy if the American people are to rediscover their trademark sense of rugged individualism.

Greg Sargent: In case you were wondering how high the stakes are for the national right in the battle over Scott Walker’s recall, consider this: The Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a branch of the conservative group founded by the Koch brothers, is sinking at least $700,000 into ads in Wisconsin defending Walker’s record.

Here it is:

So says South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint in a wonderful new interview with Reason TV. And on that point he’s precisely right. While the farthest reaches of Ron Paul’s political philosophy (an isolationist foreign policy, drug legalization, etc.) are both ideologically imprudent and political non-starters, the Texas congressman has ignited an important discussion that has the potential to bring the GOP back to its first principles of limited government.

Unlike Paul, however, DeMint is not content to be a legislative voice in the wilderness. His work with the Senate Conservatives Fund has been essential in bringing Tea Party principles to Congress’s upper chamber. Have a look at the video and be thankful that we still have a few more years of service forthcoming from this principled conservative leader.

Thanks to Politico, I came across this open letter to Newt Gingrich from Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips.  Phillips, a Gingrich supporter since last fall, thinks Newt’s Florida primary loss to Romney can be explained by a damning lack of organization:

Your campaign is sinking faster than an Italian Cruise ship. I don’t know if anyone is telling you what is going on in your campaign but right now it is a disaster.

Last week, I was in Florida with the Tea Party Express tour. At the events, other campaigns had surrogates. By default, I became yours. I did not mind, but your campaign should have had someone there. While I was at the events in Florida, Romney supporters were there with signs, Ron Paul supporters with signs and Rick Santorum supporters with signs. Your supporters were there. They asked me for signs.

Because there was no one from your campaign attending, there were no signs to give.

Remember, Newt has been a congressman and a consultant, not a CEO.  He resigned his speakership under after a failed coup.  His network of business ventures are built around getting people to imagine fundamental changes that win the future.  I’m a fan of some of his ideas, and I envy his ability to frame an issue around core conservative themes.  That said, if a presidential campaign operation is any indication of how well a candidate manages an important enterprise, I’m afraid we’re left to conclude that Newt Gingrich is not up the job of running the White House, let alone a campaign against Barack Obama.

Over the weekend, Alexandra Petri had a fun little opinion piece over at the Washington Post about “Mitt Romney’s First-World Problems.” It’s an entertaining meditation on why Romney’s life — which is something approaching the American ideal — doesn’t make for a great campaign season narrative. The most effective passage, however has nothing to do with Romney:

Some professions make peculiar demands. The ideal life for a president is full of bootstrap-pulling and high drama. It runs something like this: You were born on a mountaintop in Tennessee, greenest state in the land of the free, raised in the woods so’s you knew every tree, and were offered the choice to kill a bear but did not take it when you were only 3. You spent the next 15 years studying and working in your all-American town and somehow wound up at an institution of higher learning that was prestigious — but not offputtingly prestigious. Then you became a war veteran. Next you governed a state whose priorities aligned exactly with those of your party, and during this time you created tens of thousands of jobs. Also, you are capable of stringing together a sentence without looking excruciatingly pained.

That described Rick Perry until the last clause.

That is brutal — and totally correct. It’s a reminder of how different this election season could have been if Rick Perry had come loaded for bear. And it’s also a helpful lesson for voters: even the most enticing biography won’t save a candidate whose performance on the stump leaves voters unable to picture him in the Oval Office. Thus does Rick Perry take his seat alongside Fred Thompson and Wesley Clark in the “It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time” club.

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CST to 6:00 p.m. CST (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EST) 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 (CST)/5:00 pm (EST):  Diane Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow at Manhattan Institute:  How Obama’s Gender Policies Undermine America;

4:30 (CST)/5:30 pm (EST):  Vincent Vernuccio, Labor Policy Counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute:  Indiana’s Enactment of Right to Work;

5:00 (CST)/6:00 pm (EST):  Dr. Paul Broun (R-Georgia):  Budget or Bust Legislation;  and

5:30 (CST)/6:30 pm (EST):  James Pinkerton, co-chair of RATE (Reforming America’s Taxes Equitably) Coalition, Corporate Tax Reform.

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.