What it Means To Be A Conservative
From Austin Russell:
At times, it can appear almost impossible to identify the fundamental philosophical precepts that define the Conservative—or, as it has come to be called by many popular news sources— the Tea-Party Movement. Many dismiss it as nothing more than a marketing gimmick employed by the Republican Party to turn public sentiment against the current administration. Indeed, some argue that the only ideal underlying the movement is outrage. Politico reported yesterday morning—without providing any direct quote—that Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) himself, a popular figure within the movement, suggested that “the GOP should be wary of aligning themselves too closely to protesters who can be unpredictable in their actions and messaging.” The obvious inference is that the Movement lacks a firm philosophical leg upon which to stand. Additionally, The New York Times yesterday published a criticism of Governor Mitt Romney for his participation in the formation of the Massachussetes socialized healthcare program. It calls Romney “One of the most prominent supporters of the main ideas behind the health care plan passed by the Democratic Senate”—equivocating support for state government social programs with that of federal social programs in an attempt to demonstrate that “the [Republican] [P]arty’s voice has been dominated by people who make things up, and then condemn the rhetorical phantoms of their making.” While the article does not directly refer to the Conservative Movement, it does place Rush Limbaugh, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Mitt Romney, and Governor Sarah Palin into the same philosophical camp, once more implying that there is no true difference between the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party. The reality, of course, is that nothing could be further from the truth.
Barack Obama’s ascendance to the presidency, combined with the Democratic takeover of Congress did not, as many suppose, signal a desire on the part of the American people to empower, much less to expand, the size of the federal government. Rather, the continued expansion of the federal government under President George Bush and the Republican Congress, despite campaign promises to the contrary, convinced voters that the Republican Party was, at the very least, dishonest. It was upon Democratic promises of responsibility, accountability and change upon which so many relied for their vote. After all, if the previous administration had practiced a policy favoring bigger government, would not a change from such require a policy favoring smaller government? Unfortunately, the reality was not, as many supposed, a choice between big and small, but rather, big and bigger. In an effort to understand and correct their mistake, Americans have taken it upon themselves to more narrowly define what it is they actually want. And what do they want? The answer is obvious: a smaller, less intrusive, cleaner and more efficient federal government. That is why the latest Gallup poll found that an overwhelming majority (40%) of Americans identified their political ideology as conservative.
The new movement favors principles over individuals and values what politicians do over what they say or how they present themselves. In short, conservatives care most about what happens rather than who is in power. If Barack Obama were, today, to begin supporting the ideals of smaller government, and individual liberty—and not only in word, but in deed—there is no doubt that those same conservatives that now seek his political head would rally behind him in numbers greater than those following his election fourteen months ago.
Stimulus Fail, Part 2 (Part 3? 4?)
The Washington Examiner’s Mark Hemingway takes it away with this one:
“A new analysis of the $157 billion distributed by the American Reinvestment and Recovery act, popularly known as the stimulus bill, shows that the funds were distributed without regard for what states were most in need of jobs.”
Later: “The Mercatus Center analysis also found that Democratic congressional districts received on average almost double the funding of Republican congressional districts. Republican congressional districts received on average $232 million in stimulus funds while Democratic districts received $439 million on average.”
Lastly: “Finally, the Mercatus analysis shows that a majority of the funds allocated went to public rather than private entities — nearly $88 billion to $69 billion.”
What a surprise- you mean to tell me the stimulus is failing again? I’m shocked. Really. (Okay, not really.)
This is really bad, for four reasons: first, since a majority of public employees are members of unions, the money is going to sources of voting power for Democrats as opposed to helping all Americans (assuming, of course, it did help, which is doubtful). Secondly, the money was not distributed for efficienty of employment- even though that was its selling point. Thirdly, the money was spread by two departments not Congress, which means either those departments are biased (unlikely) or they are following a formula, as the study Hemingway quotes concludes, and that means the formula is skewed. Fourth, this is almost exactly 20% of the $770 billion approved by Congress, and it’s been ten months or so since it was approved.
George Will called it- “Which suggests that Stimulus II is…primarily designed to save a few dozen jobs — those of Democratic members of the House and Senate.”
Big Spenders In Congress
Not having worked on Capitol Hill, I won’t comment on the entirety of what is in this article, since I don’t know if some Congressional expenditures are necessary or more efficient than they appear at first glance by an outsider- but I will say that it looks like Members of Congress are continuing to waste our money on unnecessary travel expenses.
Yet another nail in the coffin for the currently elected representatives. This poll doesn’t make things look any better.
Ezra Klein Needed A Headline
Ezra Klein, the excellent liberal domestic policy blogger for www.voices.washingtonpost.com, apparently needed a headline to get himself noticed (it worked, by the way- I saw the headline on Real Clear Politics and went to the post). Unfortunately, in doing so, he very much misled readers.
In short, Klein put the title “Steny Hoyer Explains How Newt Gingrich Broke Congress.” In the interview Klein did with Majority Leader Hoyer (D-MD), Hoyer did reference the Gingrich strategy in 1994 of being obstructionist as opposd to compromising, and also said, “So the parties, to some degree, think the Gingrich strategy might be successful.” However, nowhere did I see condemnation by Hoyer of Gingrich himself, merely that Gingrich started the partisan strategy of the obstructionist minority and others have moved forward with it.
Klein is much better than this, and I recommend people check out his posts- he’s liberal, but he’s one of the intelligent, analytical ones that is excellent on health care.
The Mayo Clinic Speaks
Senator Reid, when The Mayo Clinic, possibly the most respected medical establishment in the nation, dislikes your bill, you are in trouble.
President Obama and The Mayo Clinic have worked together on health care reform this year. Mayo has critiqued the health care reform efforts before, but also praised efforts on payment reform. However, consider the following regarding the current Senate bill: “Expanding this system [Medicare] to persons 55 to 64 years old would ultimately hurt patients by accelerating the financial ruin of hospitals and doctors across the country. A majority of Medicare providers currently suffer great financial loss under the program. Mayo Clinic alone lost $840 million last year under Medicare. As a result of these types of losses, a growing number of providers have begun to limit the number of Medicare patients in their practices.? Despite these provider losses, Medicare has not curbed overall spending, especially after adjusting for benefits covered and the cost shift from Medicare to private insurance.? This is clearly an unsustainable model, and one that would be disastrous for our nation?s hospitals, doctors and eventually our patients if expanded to even more beneficiaries.”
Mayo spends a fraction what the most expensive Medicare-accepting hospitals do on patients and uses fewer resources by far. When they can’t break even on Medicare, who can? Yet Democrats want to expand Medicare? Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean was on MSNBC the other night- I was in the gym and decided to watch Keith Olbermann for a few minutes- and he fully supported the expanded Medicare concept. That alone is almost enough for me to oppose it, though when a single-payer advocate in Congress supports it as well and Stuart Butler of The Heritage Foundation is against it the opposition becomes complete.
Mayo has its critics- but many of those critics merely claim Mayo can keep costs down because it has patients that are less racially diverse, wealthier, etc. Those critics add to the case Mayo makes above, because if Mayo does have the advantages critics claim and still can’t break even on Medicare reimbursement, how can the vast majority of the rest of the nation’s hospitals even come close?
Liberals make the argument that Medicare brought millions of elderly people out of poverty- this may or may not be true, but the simple fact is that many or perhaps even most Congressional Democrats don’t have a clue about financial sustainability- granted, nor do most Congressional Republicans- and by expanding Medicare they hasten the bankruptcy of America.
Government Responsibilities: Defense, Roads, Treaties…Calories?
It had to happen- Congress wants to force certain restaurants to put caloric intake on their menus. Of course, it’s not just any restaurants- just the evil fast food restaurants. The ones putting a gun to America’s head and making us get fat.
Were our legislators not Democrats intent on taking over every aspect of our lives, this would be a joke. Unfortunately, that is what is required in the two health care reform bills on Capitol Hill. There are also two separate bills requiring the same thing. The goal, you see, is to help Americans lose weight and to overall become healthier. Of course, rather than go after fat Americans, the government is going after yet another business providing a wanted service.
I have a question for the legislators supporting this bill?(actually, a whole bunch, but I’ll limit it to one): do you really think Americans don’t know fast food isn’t healthy? The article linked above does a good job of telling both sides, and one of the critiques of the bill is that price will dictate intake of fast food far more than what’s in it for many people. Perhaps you could concentrate on getting out of the way of the economy so that it can recover and people will have more money to buy healthier food.
Healthcare Reform Is A Work In Progress
So I disagree with?many of the health care reform ideas that are likely to make it to the final conference bill- including but not limited to higher taxes, more debt and government rationing, to name but a few- but I think Allahpundit was incorrect when he?went after the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, for saying health care reform is going to take years or decades before it really pays off.
Allahpundit is correct that the bill cost is much higher than what the Congressional Budget Office says it will be, as their estimates are based upon the next ten years and have other necessary limitations such as awareness of the sway of the various political winds. However, the American health care system?is not something that can easily be fixed, and therefore I must agree with Orszag that reform will take years or decades to really kick into gear (assuming this group of elected knuckleheads?gets it done right, which is highly unlikely). Of course, if they really wanted to kickstart the process, Congress and the president could do the following: create interstate insurance competition, institute tort reform, put a substantial effort into?at least some of the Dartmouth Atlas Group recommendations, modifying the employer exclusion tax, get rid of the public option, give the average American the same options that Congress and Congressional staffers have for insurance?and make certain Members of Congress have to be join whatever bill finally gets voted into law. This last part is especially important, since Members would undoubtedly not vote for a bad bill like the one that may very well get through the conference, whereas now they can vote how they like and keep their competition-based insurance plans.
Some Democrats Just Don’t Get It
House Democrats are pushing for a so-called "Wall Street tax" on certain?financial instruments. The tax, on the sales and purchases of these instruments, is a mere .25% and designed to bring in $150 billion.
I would comment on this, but a person in the comment sections below The Hill article I linked to above said it very well: "Wall Street pays to help Main Street Tax? What a LIE ! This is another tax that will be passed down to the holder of the account from the broker – that is US individuals that own stock as part of thier [sic]?savings. If its [sic] a fund that gets the tax, they just pass it along as a [sic] admin fee. So in the END the individual comsumers are getting the SHAFT. Thank you Congress."
My sentiments exactly. Why can’t Democrats understand this basic concept of business and markets? Maybe because they have never been in the non-public, non-unionized sector of the American work force?
Joe Wilson Will Not Be Silenced
FOX NEWS PRESENTS OBSTACLE FOR NH GOP OPPORTUNITY
Frank Guinta, the Republican mayor of Manchester, announced last month that he would seek Democrat Carol Shea-Porter’s 1st Congressional seat in New Hampshire. This is likely to be the best chance the GOP has for retaking the seat once held by two term Rep. Jeb Bradley. Guinta has received the full support of the Republican Congressional Committee and from the NH GOP lead by Former Bush (41) Chief of Staff and New Hampshire Governor, John H. Sununu.
Real Clear Politics noted the following:
?What makes Guinta’s candidacy so enticing is his home field advantage in the Queen City. Though Manchester is a majority Democratic city, he won a second term in 2007 by nearly eight points, and raised record funds in the process. Manchester also played a key role in Shea-Porter’s last win. She carried every ward last year and took the city by 5,000 votes — accounting for 40% of her reelection margin in the 1st Congressional district. No wonder Republicans hope Guinta’s special appeal for the city’s voters could be the X-factor in next year’s House race.?
A campaign advisor for the Guinta camp told reporters that the greater Manchester area accounts for 37% of the vote in the House district and Guinta’s popularity and standing in the city will “be a huge advantage.”
This appears to be good news for a New Hampshire that has recently shifted blue with 2008 Presidential election and the 2006 triumphs of Paul Hodes and Carol Shea Porter over incumbents Charlie Bass and Jeb Bradley.? However, Mayor Guinta has a tough road ahead of him. A recent poll commissioned by the National Republican Congressional Committee, shows Shea-Porter leading Guinta 43 to 34 %, with 24 % undecided.? Republicans are encouraged that the two-term congresswoman is polling below 50 %, but Guinta’s 34 % total is somewhat underwhelming, given he’s a well-known official in the district. The Republican Congressional Committee has its eye on Shea-Porter?s seat as her district is the more Republican of New Hampshire?s two House seats. Unfortunately, for Guinta the district gave President Obama 53% of the vote last year and ?despite being a top GOP target, Shea-Porter won 52 % in her re-election bid.?
As if that did not already darken Guintas?s hopes, yesterday Shea-Porter was applauded on the conservative-leaning Fox and Friends news program.
Fox News Anchor Gretchen Carlson gave a laudatory nod to the New Hampshire Democrat for asking ?very important questions? to President Obama on the logic of closing profitable GM and Chrysler dealerships.? Carlson went on to say, ?She seems to have her finger on the pulse of this issue.? Rep. Shea-Porter has a known reputation for being staunchly partisan, and has received criticisms from New Hampshire citizens on her endorsement of the stimulus bill, an issue that Guinta will undoubtedly try and exploit as he will most likely run on a platform of fiscal conservatism.
His campaign website reads the following:
?Washington D.C. is out of control. Congress continues to waste your hard earned tax dollars on bailout after bailout and a spending agenda that is mortgaging our future. I want to bring the same leadership to Washington that we bring to town halls throughout our state.?
He will confidently tout his tax cutting record, as he undoubtedly viewed that as the magnum factum of his two terms in office.
However, now that Shea Porter is taking on President Obama for the closing of profitable Chrysler and GM dealerships, and has received the endorsement of a Fox News anchor, it appears Mayor Guinta?s bid for a Congressional seat is not getting any easier.
