Freedom Line Blog

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.

Interview with Quin Hillyer, senior editorial writer at The Washington Times and senior editor of The American Spectator, on this year’s midterm elections and what voters expect going forward.  Note: this interview was done November 1, one day prior to the midterm elections.

Listen to the interview here.

Ashton makes a good point about the geographic diversity of the GOP House leadership in comparison to its Democratic predecessor. Another interesting addition may be Kristi Noem, the incoming freshman who will serve as the At-Large Representative for South Dakota and who looks to be in line to fill a new position being created to give some leadership representation to the burgeoning ranks of Tea Party-affiliated conservatives. Noem is attractive, articulate, and has a compelling biography. She looks to be a definite rising star in the party.

I think the mix of the two parties may be reflective of what caused the Democrats to go astray in the past few years. Looking at the new Republican leadership, only Texan Jeb Hensarling comes from a state where Republicans are reliably strong in both federal and state elections. Democrats, on the other hand, populated their leadership ranks with figures from the deepest of the deep blue states. They governed that way too. And in so doing, they forgot all the lessons that gave them control of the Congress.

In the 2006 and 2008 election cycles, Rahm Emanuel in the House and Chuck Schumer in the Senate gave considerable flexibility to their recruited candidates, allowing them to run with conservative positions on a host of issues that allowed them to escape being tarred as liberals in the Midwest, the South, and the Mountain West. While they succeeded in getting a large percentage of those candidates elected, the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda then lurched so heavily to the left that the new members had to run for reelection in the shadow of a record that undermined all their pretensions of moderation.

The facile interpretation of this trend is that a party always has to govern from the center to keep its majority. That’s also the rationale for liberals like  E.J. Dionne, who hope that the new conservative majority’s stand on principle will alienate them from the electorate. In his most recent column, Dionne writes:

Give Republicans credit for this: They don’t chase the center, they try to move it. Democrats can play a loser’s game of scrambling after a center being pushed ever rightward. Or they can stand their ground and show how far their opponents are from moderate, problem-solving governance. Why should Democrats take Republican advice that Republicans themselves would never be foolish enough to follow?

This is what happens when a static mind attempts to comprehend a dynamic landscape. The problem with Dionne’s analysis is that he assumes the left and the right are equidistant from the center. This is false. When Gallup polled the question in June, 42 percent of Americans identified as conservative, 35 percent said they were moderate, and 20 percent said they were liberal. That means the self-identified center-right represents an astonishing 77 percent of the country. By contrast, the center-left at its theoretical apex is only a slight majority of Americans. When you then factor in that 56 percent of independents broke for Republicans this year — and that that represented a 36 point swing from 2006 — you see how steep the hill is for Democrats.

Dionne and his counterparts in Congress need to learn the lesson: in a center-right country, it’s more important for Democrats to moderate than Republicans. If you doubt that, ask Bill Clinton — he might remind you that he’s the only Democratic president to be elected twice since FDR.

One month ago, we sat down with famed climate realist Bjorn Lomborg and published our commentary “‘Cool It’ – Bjorn Lomborg’s New Cinematic Rebuke to Global Warming Alarmists.”  Well, the movie’s debut finally arrives this week, and all of us who believe in individual freedom and oppose the worldwide effort to limit freedom and prosperity in pursuit of the extremist climate change agenda should make sure to see it.  The film is a remarkable rebuttal to, and debunking of, Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” and we guarantee you’ll both enjoy and appreciate it.

It is important to support those who, like Lomborg, place their careers and even safety in pursuit of truth, so please take your friends along.  We’ve seen the film, and can guarantee you won’t regret it.  You can view the brief trailer, and locate cities and theaters here.  Enjoy!

Today, on behalf of a grateful nation, CFIF thanks all of our veterans for their service and sacrifice for our freedoms. 

With Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) announcing the end of her campaign to be Republican Conference Chairman, the likely top four House GOP leadership spots look like this:

(1)   Speaker – Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)

(2)   Majority Leader – Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)

(3)   Majority Whip – Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)

(4)   Conference Chairman – Rep. Jeb Hersarling (R-TX)

It’s always interesting to see where leadership team members are from because it indicates where the strength of the party lies.  Since leadership positions are sought and won by members with multiple terms in office, it’s intriguing to see four Republicans representing each corner of the country.

Contrast this with the locations represented by the outgoing top four House Democrat leaders:

(1)   Speaker – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

(2)   Majority Leader – Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD)

(3)   Majority Whip – Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC)

(4)   Caucus Chairman – Rep. John Larson (D-CT)

Aside from Clyburn, all the Democrat leaders come from deep blue coastal states (e.g. California, Maryland, and Connecticut).  Counting Clyburn, the Democrats’ claim to a “southern” voice is tied to a gerrymandered district designed to elect a liberal African-American.  If Hoyer beats Clyburn for the Minority Whip post, even that fig leaf of regional diversity will blow away.

The House Democratic caucus lost 29 of 57 “blue dog” members last Tuesday, making the remaining chamber membership much more liberal.  It also wiped out the Democrats’ claims to represent regions other than the high-tax, morally bankrupt coasts.  That, combined with Nancy Pelosi’s likely retention as caucus leader, will make it substantially more difficult for the party to recruit viable candidates in 2012.

Conservatives shouldn’t count on gifts like this forever, but for now, we’ll gladly take them.

As a former staff member in the Texas House of Representatives, I have an interest in news that the chamber may be headed for conservative leadership.  This morning, Rep. Ken Paxton (R-McKinney) announced his bid to unseat current Speaker Joe Straus (R-San Antonio).  If successful, Paxton would be the third Republican Speaker in under three years, since Straus ascended to power by beating former Speaker (and my old boss) Tom Craddick (R-Midland) in 2009.

What does an intra-party fight in one of the reddest states in America mean for citizens outside the Lone Star State?  Plenty.

Texas is already the exemplar of low-tax, low-regulation state government.  Moreover, because the legislature only meets for 140 days every two years, Texas government has not had a chance to weigh in legislatively on issues like Arizona’s approach to illegal immigration and Virginia’s response to block implementation of ObamaCare.  With the kick-off of the legislative session next January, a more conservative Republican House majority will be able to make some big statements about the power of the 10^th Amendment in our federal system.

That is, if the House is run by a true conservative.  Stay tuned…

The Wall Street Journal is among the news sources carrying coverage of the preliminary recommendations being produced by President Obama’s much-feted debt reduction panel. According to the Journal’s synopsis:

Among the controversial proposals, the plan in its current form would end or cap a wide range of breaks relied on by the middle class, including the deduction for home-mortgage interest. It would tax capital gains and dividends at the higher rates now levied on wage income. To compensate, one version of the plan would dramatically lower and simplify individual rates, to 9%, 15% and 24%.

For businesses, the plan would significantly lower the corporate tax rate—from a current top rate of 35% to as low as 26%—but also eliminate a number of deductions. It would make permanent the research and development tax credit. Overall, the plan would cut the federal deficit by $3.8 trillion by 2020.

… On Social Security, the plan would gradually raise the retirement age to 68 around 2050 and 69 by 2075. It would combine a cut in benefits with a rise in taxes on wealthier people’s incomes. It would also seek to rein in federal spending on health care beyond what’s called for in the recently passed health-care overhaul. This would be achieved by introducing further changes, including reform of medical-malpractice law, and by seeking to slow the growth of the Medicare program.

The plan would make significant cuts on spending over which Congress has direct control, beyond entitlements such as Medicare. It identifies $410 billion in discretionary spending cuts by 2015. It proposes cutting the federal work force 10%, at a further savings of $13.2 billion by 2015.

Congressional earmarks—provisions inserted into legislation for lawmakers’ pet projects—would be banned permanently, saving $16 billion.

This a surprisingly market-friendly recommendation, much of which — though politically very tough — is admirable. Hopefully, low-tax advocates will train their fire on the unnecessary increases in capital gains and dividend rates, as well as what looks to be a proposed increase on Social Security and Medicare taxes for the wealthy. While we don’t know what deductions are on the chopping block, if the home mortgage example is representative there’s actually a strong free-market case to be made in favor of the eliminations. By giving economic preference to activities like home purchases, these deductions lead to economic inefficiency (they either direct consumers to make choices that wouldn’t be rational without the deduction or subsidize purchases that would have been made regardless).

Elsewhere in the WSJ piece, the authors refer to the fact that the current recommendations rely about 75 percent on spending cuts and 25 percent on tax increases. Good, but not great. A recognition that taxes always hamper economic activity means that tax increases should never be considered instead of spending cuts unless (A) government is only doing the things that are its rightful responsibility and (b) it is doing all those things at maximum efficiency. At some point, the exigencies of politics may require compromising short of that ideal, but I’d like to see a comprehensive examination of spending in the executive branch before tax hikes are even considered.

Let’s consider the cabinet departments. The Departments of Justice, Defense, Treasury, and State are the originals and unquestionably justified under our scheme of federal government. There are others that have probably grown into necessary organs in years since. We’ll need Health and Human Services as long as we have a federal welfare state, Interior as long as we have public lands and a National Park system, Transportation at least for the interstate highway system and air travel and, though its probably in need of some pruning, Homeland Security. Veterans Affairs seems like it could be folded into either Defense or HHS. As for the Departments of Education, Housing & Urban Development, Energy, Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor (apart from its statistical work), I’m at a loss for what useful purpose (or more importantly, results) justifies their existence. I’d be more than willing to scrap each of them, keep the few parts we still need, and re-check the ledger before considering higher taxes for even a single American.

The House GOP isn’t wasting any time putting President Barack Obama on notice that they are ready to test his new commitment to bipartisanship on education issues.  Rep. John Kline (R-MN), the incoming-Chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, is promising to recreate the D.C. school voucher program Obama and the Democrats killed two years ago.

Vouchers are despised by teachers’ unions because the device introduces competition into the K-12 education market.  If parents don’t like the curriculum, culture or administration at a public school a voucher lets them send their children to a private school that meets their needs.  For all the canards about separation of church and state, the real reason teachers’ unions hate vouchers is because less students means less of a need for public school (i.e. unionized) teachers.

Supporting a bill that recreates the D.C. school voucher program would be good politics and good policy.  Good politics because President Obama could legitimately claim a bipartisan victory with Republicans on an issue that moves the president to the political center.  It would be good policy because it would allow low-income students the probability of the single biggest attraction of a better education: a better life.

All this for only recreating what already existed.  If the president can’t muster the courage to support this kind of feel-good, localized issue he’ll have no one to blame for the gridlock but himself.

H/T: Washington Times

A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows that most voters want the new House Republican majority to investigate the spending impact of ObamaCare.  The survey found that 55% of respondents support a close look at the costs and implications of the health care “reform” bill jammed through Congress earlier this year.

With the tentacles of ObamaCare reaching far beyond the purview of “health” don’t be surprised if House committees like Budget, Oversight and Government Reform, and even Commerce (among others) open investigations into the most drastic government power grab since LBJ’s Great Society.

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.

We have illustrated the dramatic difference between the pro-growth Reagan Recovery and the ongoing Obama Malaise, which a side-by-side comparison of economic data makes clear.  In addition to the lopsided data differential, the uninspiring and self-pitying rhetoric to which Obama treats us provides another sad contrast.  Consider the following exchange from Obama’s “60 Minutes” interview this week:

STEVE KROFT: Do you get discouraged? Are you discouraged now?

OBAMA: I do get discouraged. I mean, there are times where I thought the economy would’ve gotten better by now. One of the things I think you understand as president is, you’re held responsible for everything. But you don’t always have control of everything, especially an economy this big. There are limited tools to encourage the kind of job growth that we need.

Such “woe is me” dejection can be self-fulfilling (see, e.g., Jimmy Carter’s “Malaise Speech”), and would have been unimaginable coming from Reagan, who faced even higher unemployment rates, interest rates and inflation than Obama.  But here’s a tip, Mr. President:  nobody wants or expects you to “have control of everything.”  You do, and that is the problem.  As shown by your more optimistic predecessors, getting yourself out of the way would be the best first step toward “the kind of job growth that we need.”

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.

It’s been clear ever since President Obama’s irritable East Room press conference the day after the midterm elections that the White House is in deep denial over its refutation by the American electorate.

What’s shocking, however, is just how much the bunker mentality is getting noticed even in Democratic circles. A new Politico story by Mike Allen & Jim VandeHei entitled “President Obama Isolated Ahead of 2012” brings an administration dead set on standing athwart reality into sharp relief. The piece, well worth reading in its entirety, is filled to the brim with damning testimonials about the Obama White House’s incompetence on basic politics. One of the more glaring quotes:

Alex Pollock’s contribution in The American, a publication for the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), is much needed medicine for the regulatory fever about to be unleashed when the Dodd-Frank “financial reform” bill is implemented.

The key to understanding boom-and-bust cycles, according to Pollock, is realizing the limits of a mathematical model’s ability to predict the future.  To quote Pollock quoting a colleague, “The model works until it doesn’t.”  That is, until someone falsifies the model by acting in a way contrary to the model’s assumptions.  Then everybody who uses the model is out a lot of money.

So, if profit-hungry businesses can’t figure out a way to avoid losing money, what in the world makes the denizens on Capitol Hill think they can create a federal agency with such powers?

Hubris and stupidity.  Political cultivation of those qualities is a science unto itself.

Weekend Bonus Link: For another theory of the business cycle, click here.

The folks over at Reason.tv have a wicked sense of humor.  Their latest target is newly (and indefinitely) suspended pundit Keith Olbermann from MSNBC.  Apparently, all it took was $7,200 in near meaningless campaign donations to Democratic candidates to finally convince the network that Olbermann was too partisan to be on-air.

Here’s a sample of some his classic work:

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.

For a guy who won a 21-month-long campaign, you’d think Senator-Elect Marco Rubio (R-FL) would get the weekend off.

Hardly.

He’s already been asked to deliver the GOP’s response to President Barack Obama’s weekly address.  Welcome to primetime, all the time, Mr. Rubio.

If getting a House chairmanship were as automatic as moving from ranking member of the minority to chairman of the majority, then Representatives Ron Paul (R-TX) and Paul Ryan (R-WI) would be resting easy today.  Rep. Paul is the ranking Republican on the subcommittee with oversight responsibility of the Federal Reserve, a role the Austrian economist would relish.  For his part, Rep. Ryan is the ranking Republican on the powerful Budget Committee, the body empowered to make significant changes in public policy through the budget writing process.

Both men have reason to doubt an unchallenged assent to power because both are on record with radical plans to shrink the size of government.  Paul is sure to refile legislation to audit the Fed, a proposition that may gain popularity with the Fed’s announcement to add nearly $1 trillion to the national debt.  For his part, Ryan’s Roadmap to America’s Future is a comprehensive vehicle for delivering sustainable government programs that leave room for entrepreneurship and growth.

Voters had their say on Tuesday.  Now, it’s time to see how many fiscal conservatives in the newly enlarged GOP caucus are willing to elevate two of the most ardent foes of big government to consequential leadership positions.

This week’s edition of the Liberty Update, CFIF’s weekly e-newsletter, is out. Below is a summary of its contents:

Lee:  2012 May Be Even Brighter for Conservatives Than 2010
Senik:  Four Surprising Lessons from the Midterm Elections
Ellis:  Election Results for Candidates Profiled by CFIF
Release:  2010 Midterm Elections: Net Neutrality Winners and Losers

Freedom Minute Video:  The Way We Were: A Look Back at Liberal Rule, 2009-2010
Podcast:  International Author Shares Diary from World War II
Jester’s Courtroom:  How Not To Rob a Bank

Editorial Cartoons:  Latest Cartoons of Michael Ramirez
Quiz:  Question of the Week
Notable Quotes:  Quotes of the Week

If you are not already signed up to receive CFIF’s Liberty Update by e-mail, sign up here.