Intentions Are Not Enough–AFP Summit

Blogging from the Americans for Prosperity Defending the American Dream Summit today, and listening to Isaac Morehouse with the Foundation for Economic Education talk about how to make a difference.  He makes a good point:

Intentions are not enough.

I think this is a hard lesson the conservative movement is currently learning.  Just wanting smaller government and less spending is not enough.  We have to act.  And more importantly—when we act, we need to be sure that the ideas we are acting on are not just significant to us, but correct.

By this I mean, believing sincerely in something does not make it right.  Believing sincerely that a particular tactical move will make a difference politically does not automatically mean that it actually will.

This is why it’s so important that we as a movement and as individuals experiment with our political tactics.  And when we’ve found techniques that work, we need to keep using them.

Allie Winegar Duzett is the author of How to Save America: A Tactical Guide for Practical Patriots.  Find her on Twitter for livetweeting of the event. Crossposting today at TruePoliticsUSA, Rightosphere, and Conservatives4Congress.

New Hampshire Businesses Are In Trouble

Being a former New Hampshireite, I try to follow state news fairly regularly. This past Tuesday, I was fortunate enough to see a column by former State Commissioner of Health and Human Services John Stephen of Manchester, a health care and government solutions consultant, regarding the state budget, which the majority Democrats have grown outrageously in the last few years, and apparently plan to do again next year.

Unfortunately, being Democrats, Governor Lynch and his friends in the state house aren’t going to seriously cut budgets, though to Lynch’s credit he did stand up to the state employees union, which rejected a compromise with the governor to save jobs. Instead, they want to, and have passed, a five percent tax on LLCs in the state, according to Stephen.

This is really bad- there are over 10,000 businesses that fall under this category, including my father’s general contracting business (soon to be my brother’s). When former Governor Benson held strong on a budget veto, he also created a state budget surplus. Lynch, meanwhile, proposed to raise taxes his first year in office. That has not stopped, and continues with this bill, HB 2.

Fortunately, the people can still voice their opinion. Thanks to the New Hampshire chapter of the Americans for Prosperity, this information was sent to me: “Mark your calendar for December 16, 2009 and promise yourself that you and others will take the time to testify at the only public hearing for the 5% Tax on LLC?s and Partnerships which the Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) plans to hold at 10:00am at their Concord office on 109 Pleasant Street.”

The New Hampshire Advantage is at risk, and so are thousands of small businesses. I say small businesses because Wal-Mart and other big businesses will not be hit by this tax, as they are not LLCs. Thus, the party of the little guy is showing its true colors as the party of Big Business- note, not free markets- and is willing to crush the backbone of New Hampshire’s economy to brown nose to Big Business. Realtors, restaurants, and many other industries are going to be hit hard by this. Of course, given how the Democratic-controlled New Hampshire government passed a minimum wage raise in 2007, something Big Business loves, and passed a law essentially banning payday lenders in the state, this is no surprise.

New Hampshire citizens, this is on your shoulders. Make your voices heard. Good luck.

Don’t Panick Yet- Healthcare Reform Still Needs Senate Passage

One of my friends sent me a text early Sunday morning (1:15 a.m. EST) saying that a trillion dollar House bill had been foisted on America. While it is true that a more-than-trillion dollar bill was passed by the House of Representatives 220-215, this should not yet be a cause for panick.

No, the bill is not good news. However, as Hot Air points out, “Take heart, righties…the likelihood of 60 votes in the Senate, especially after a vote this narrow, [is] very slim indeed.” (Also, see my piece?here on how I think Reid could very well fail in his goal to pass health care reform.)?Furthermore, the upcoming Senate bill (which is still being scored by the Congressional Budget Office) is certainly going to be more moderate than the House one, given the influence of moderate Democratic senators such as Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Independent Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Democrats need 60 out of 100 votes in the Senate, not the 50%+1 (or 218) necessary in the House of Representatives, and assuming all Republicans oppose the bill, even just one of the three Senators listed above voting with Republicans to not close debate on the bill would kill it. Therefore, Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) must keep the bill more moderate. (Unfortunately, of course, liberals will kill it if it’s too moderate, so he can’t make it an actual good bill, just a less-worse one.) This balance of power is what gives Americans reason to hope that this disastrous Democratic form of health care reform does not work. Allow me to briefly explain.

After spending over 14 months in D.C., both at The Heritage Foundation and in health care lobbying, I’m certainly not an expert on the political process, but I know it fairly well, and any number of things could happen that would derail health care reform. The first is getting a Senate bill passed. The second is to get the House and Senate bills to conference and make one combined bill. The third is to then vote on that combined bill in both chambers. However, a number of things along the way could derail the process. A few examples: a Senate bill could be killed in the inital chamber vote; the conference bill could be killed in either the House or the Senate (remember, many liberals are declaring they won’t vote for a bill without a public option, and some won’t vote for a bill that’s pro-life); and, lastly,?the bill could pass in its conference-created form in one chamber but?be modified slightly in the other and therefore have to be voted on again in the chamber that passed the conference bill. This latter course could make the bill unpassable, as the changes could be very minor or very large.

We should all be actively involved in contacting our representatives in Congress, becoming active through organizations such as The Heritage Foundation?or Americans for Prosperity?and generally following the debate so when voting comes around next year we know who to vote out of office. One example of a Republican who?perhaps should be?gone: Representative Joseph Cao (R-LA), who represents a Democratic district and voted in favor of the House bill.