Archive for the ‘Tenth Amendment’ Category
According to this article, Donald Trump opted out of speaking at CPAC because he “will be in Witchita, Kanasas for a major rally on Saturday prior to Caucus.” Don’t criticize my spelling of Wichita, Kansas. I just copied/pasted the quote from Trump’s statement. Apparently, making America great again doesn’t mean you’ve passed a fifth grade spelling class.
The implication of the Trump campaign’s statement was that Trump simply had to cancel his CPAC speech to win in Kansas. So much for that myth:
Will Katrina Pierson, Trump’s mouthpiece, insist that Trump had to cancel his speech to preserve a resounding defeat? Surely, she can’t argue it was because Mr. Trump was competitive.
UPDATE: With 23% in, Sen. Cruz leads Mr. Trump 49.0%-26.0%. Trump has closed the gap from 25.8% to 23%.
Trump skipped CPAC because he anticipated getting booed frequently during the speech. That isn’t new for Trump. What’s new is that he can’t blame getting booed by lobbyists. Everyone knows that CPAC isn’t filled with lobbyists. It’s filled with activists, many of whom are young and idealistic. The truth is that Trump doesn’t like conservative principles.
Trump has frequently talked about making the federal government run better. That isn’t a conservative principle. Limited government conservatives want as many responsibilities and decisions dealt with at the state, local or family level. Conservatives don’t have faith in the federal government getting things right. They’d rather have local units of government make decisions than have the federal government put together a one-size-fits-all plan that isn’t a solution.
UPDATE II: With 61% in, Sen. Cruz leads Trump 51.1%-24%, with Sen. Rubio getting 14.5% and Kasich getting 9%. That pretty much verifies, not that there was much doubt, that Trump skipped CPAC because it would’ve looked bad for him to get loudly booed at the biggest conservative event before the convention.
UPDATE III: It’s official. Cruz wins the Kansas caucus.
While Duluth and other media speculated that opponents and supporters were evenly split at the five-hour public hearing that included a two-hour open house session and a three-hour comment period, the numbers just don’t add up that way.
They reported that attendance was 1,300 to 1,500. But of that number, a caravan of seven buses and a passenger van journeyed from the Range with at least 500 supporters and another 100 or more arrived in advance by cars.
Simply put, there are lots of Iron Rangers who badly want PolyMet to happen. They might not have sophisticated presentations but what they lack in sophistication, they more than make up for in passion and verifiable information.
The unified message of business and labor all across the Iron Range to Duluth and the Twin Cities delivered in a fact-based and civil manner was outstanding.
That paragraph indicates that Iron Rangers are tired of being told by elitist metro Democrats, aka Metrocrats, that they don’t have the right to earn a living. This has the potential of turning the relatively conservative, pro-Second Amendment, Range Democrats against the anti-mining Metrocrats. This indicates the hostility isn’t that far below the proverbial surface:
Yes, some opponents and preservation groups will continue their misinformation campaigns which are part of an excessive rhetoric fear campaign of damage to the environment.
The facts, however, will win out in the EIS and then permitting processes. And the preservationist fear mongers do not hold those cards.
The “preservationist fear mongers” that the editorial cites have this in common: they’re almost exclusively elitist Metrocrats. That’s a stark contrast with the blue collar Iron Rangers who supported Gov. Dayton in 2010. The ‘Lt. Gov. editorial’ offers a different perspective of the same potential problem:
The list of four is heavily female-metrocentric-weighted. The governor’s chief of staff, Tina Smith, state Sen. Katie Sieben and Kelliher, all of the Twin Cities area, are strongly suggested.
The other person that’s supposedly on Gov. Dayton’s short list is IRRRB Commissioner Tony Sertich. I haven’t confirmed whether Sertich is actually on Gov. Dayton’s short of if he’s more of a ‘wishful thinking’ candidate. Still, the risks are high for Gov. Dayton. If he picks a Metrocrat, he risks alienating Iron Rangers. If Gov. Dayton picks Sertich, he’s essentially snubbing the check-writing, anti-mining Metrocrats from the Twin Cities.
The other name I’ve heard floated is former Sen. Tarryl Clark, aka Taxin’ Tarryl Clark. With Gov. Dayton’s tax increases likely to be a major campaign issue, Taxin’ Tarryl would just add fuel to that fire. That’s before talking about her responsibilities with the Blue-Green Alliance. ‘Carpetbagger’ Tarryl didn’t win many friends when she ran for the Eighth District endorsement. DFL activists rejected her, in part because she was a carpetbagger, partially because she’s as anti-mining as the Metrocrats on that short list.
The simple truth is that Gov. Dayton will have to choose. Either Gov. Dayton sides with the elitist Metrocrats and alienates Iron Range Democrats or he sides with the more conservative Iron Democrats and alienates elitist, anti-mining Metrocrats.
There’s an old, ancient really, joke about giving a chameleon a nervous breakdown. The way to give a chameleon a nervous breakdown is to put it against a plaid background. In this situation, I’d argue that Gov. Dayton is the chameleon and the DFL is the plaid background.
Good luck with that.
Technorati: Mark Dayton, Yvonne Prettner-Solon, Katie Sieben, Margaret Anderson-Kelliher, Taxin’ Tarryl Clark, Tony Sertich, IRRRB, Metrocrats, Iron Rangers, Militant Environmentalists, PolyMet, DFL, Election 2014
The myths about the Affordable Care Act are multiplying on editorial pages. This SCTimes editorial is a good picture of those myths being amplified:
Too many partisan politicians are (again) being allowed to frame a key part of federal health care reform in a misleading, even irrelevant ideological perspective.
These folks proclaim the U.S. Supreme Court’s mandate to carry health insurance is an erosion of our personal freedoms. Then they couple it with a dead-end conversation about whether it’s a tax or fine on all people. It’s not all people; just those who don’t choose (but can afford) insurance.
President Obama has gotten into the habit of calling people freeloaders if they’ll be affected by the individual mandate. That’s a disgusting, dishonest characterization. Since when has the government had the authority to tell car owners that their car insurance had to have specific coverages?
Here’s a little dose of reality. The government doesn’t have the authority to tell people that they have to buy a policy that includes collision, theft, fire, liability and comprehensive coverages.
Yet that’s exactly what the individual mandate does. It says that people who don’t buy the health insurance policy that the government dictates will pay the individual mandate tax.
Imagine this: as a result of the Affordable Care Act, a couple that bought a high-deductible policy, then pays for routine checkups and doctor visits, is subject to the individual mandate tax because their policy didn’t meet the federal government’s minimum coverages.
In other words, people that did the right thing in buying their own health insurance are a) being called freeloaders by President Obama and b) subject to a hefty tax because they didn’t do exactly what President Obama dictated to them to do.
If that doesn’t sound like the actions of an autocratic government, then it’s time people read the definition of autocrat:
- an absolute ruler, especially a monarch who holds and exercises the powers of government as by inherent right, not subject to restrictions.
- a person invested with or claiming to exercise absolute authority.
- a person who behaves in an authoritarian manner; a domineering person.
This statement is particularly irritating:
These folks proclaim the U.S. Supreme Court’s mandate to carry health insurance is an erosion of our personal freedoms.
First, the Supreme Court’s ruling carries with it an erosion of each person’s liberty. If people want to argue that we’re burdened whether we purchase the health insurance the government tells us to purchase or pay a massive tax, that’s an intellectually honest argument. It’s disgusting but it’s intellectually honest.
Second, who appointed the Supreme Court to be the arbiters of personal liberties? They have the right to tell us if something’s constitutional. They don’t have the authority to ignore the Constitution even when an administration attempts to ignore it.
Regardless of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion, the Tenth Amendment says that the things that the federal government isn’t responsible for are the responsibility of the states and the people. Here’s another BS section from the editorial:
If your core objection is all about choice vs. force, you really only have to answer two questions before you propose your alternative plan. First, if people are allowed to choose no insurance, how are they going to pay their medical bills, especially when those bills exceed their savings account?
Will they turn over their cars, homes and even assets of other relatives to pay bills? And when that’s not enough (which it won’t be in many cases), how will they cover the remainder? Last I checked, indentured servitude wasn’t exactly legal, which brings us to paying the ultimate price, shall we say, human foreclosure?
The first question doesn’t think about liberty because it accepts a faulty premise. It’s bad enough when government tells people they have to buy health insurance. It’s worse when government tells people that that health insurance policy is subject to a massive tax if it doesn’t include the coverages that they insist people buy.
Minnesota state statutes include 68 mandates for health insurance, each one adding costs to the insurance policy. If government didn’t initially impose 68 mandates to be included in each health insurance policy, more people would buy health insurance because it wouldn’t be too expensive. If people were allowed to buy high-deductible policies that included coverage for catastrophic health events, the premise for the first question disintegrates. Ditto with the second, sarcastic argument.
The problem with this type of editorial is that it deals with what is rather than what should be. Saying that we have to comply with a fatally flawed law is technically true as a matter of law. It’s downright stupid to say that we shouldn’t try repealing a law that a) doesn’t contain health care costs, b) doesn’t control increases in health insurance premiums, c) doesn’t give people sensible health insurance options and d) limits people’s freedom.
Questions like that probably limit the number of invites I get to dinner parties. But they get to the cold-hearted realities about the “mandated coverage” debate, which many see as the center of this health reform act.
It’s disappointing that educated people wouldn’t think this issue through better than this. The Affordable Care Act is a solution at financial gunpoint. It isn’t a solution. It’s a way to bankrupt this nation.
It’s disgusting that a government thinks it can impose unconstitutional, stupid laws on people who’ve tried to do the right thing. It’s more disgusting to think that people start from the default positions that a) liberty is a frivolous thing and b) money is more important than liberty. People who are more worried about money than liberty soon won’t have either.
Prior to oral arguments on O’Care, liberals were ‘Supremely’ confident that it would breeze through the high court. They quickly found out that that wouldn’t be the case.
With Jeffrey Toobin frantically saying that the oral arguments had been “a train wreck for the Obama administration”, it’s perhaps time to ask why they were surprised with the difficult questions. Here are a few thoughts on why they’re stunned:
- Liberals in academia rarely have their worldview challenged. Frankly, each campus is like its own DC, complete with bubble.
- The Supreme Court has mangled the clear meaning of the Constitution so long that a right reading of it shocks liberals.
- Liberals have tried burying the Ninth and Tenth amendments for so long that they though they were dead.
- Liberals have tried replacing the Ninth and Tenth amendments with warped interpretations of the the Interstate Commerce and the Necessary and Proper clauses.
The thought that the justices would actually give more weight to the Constitution than precedents just stunned liberal pundits. Hearing justices question SG Verilli about the enumerated powers of the Ninth Amendment with regard to the individual mandate had to rock Jeffrey Toobin’s world.
The thought that Justice Scalia would lecture SG Verilli on the true meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause must’ve stunned liberal pundits, too. In that lecture, Justice Scalia said that O’Care might or might not be necessary but it wasn’t proper. Here’s the heart of the text of the Necessary and Proper Clause:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States
It’s interesting that liberals don’t think that legislation that violates the Ninth and Tenth amendments are proper. I’ve yet to meet a liberal that admits that the Constitution limits what the federal government is authorized to do. It appears as though the Roberts Court is about to teach them that foundational principle.
The Supreme Court has fit their rulings into their policy beliefs for so long that liberals expected the Supremes to rubberstamp the things they like (think O’Care) and overturn things they don’t agree with (think Kelo v. New London).
If Democrats want to continue thinking of SCOTUS as a rubberstamp, that’s their right. It’s also foolish. The Roberts Court is getting the reputation of paying more attention to the Constitution and its amendments than to precedents. That’s as it should be.
Relying on precedents will get people in trouble. Trusting in the Constitution never will. That’s the Democrats’ biggest downfall.
This week has been an extraordinary week for constitutional scholars. This week, people of all political stripes heard constitutional arguments from conservatives like Justices Scalia and Alito to liberals like Justices Ginsburg and Breyer.
They heard arguments made by Paul Clement, who represented the 26 states. They heard arguments made by Solicitor General Verilli. Some of the best arguments made in the case, though, were part of the Legal Landmark Foundation’s Amicus brief to the court. LLF’s brief is a history lesson on the Commerce Clause. Here’s part of LLF’s brief:
New York, New Jersey and Connecticut were on the brink of civil war over New York’s refusal to allow any ships or other navigational transports access to the state’s ports or harbors other than those owned by New York’s designees. The result was escalating transport fees to neighboring states, confiscation of unlicensed vessels and dangerously heightened tensions between New York and its neighboring states. Gibbons, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 184-185.
A national crisis, if not civil war, was averted by the Supreme Court’s application of the Commerce Clause, which was straightforward, logical, and obvious:
All America understands, and has uniformly understood, the word “commerce” to comprehend navigation. It was so understood, and must have been so understood, when the constitution was framed. The power over commerce, including navigation, was one of the primary objects for which the people of America adopted their government, and must have been contemplated in forming it.
The Convention must have used the word in that sense; because all have understood it in that sense, and the attempt to restrict it comes too late.
In other words, the Commerce Clause was codified into the Constitution to give the federal government the authority to resolve trade disputes between the sovereign states. That’s a far cry from giving the federal government the authority to tell people or corporations that they must engage in specific types of commerce of Washington’s choosing.
Here’s another brilliant constitutional argument against Obamacare:
The federal government’s flagship case, Wickard v. Filburn, 311 U.S. 111 (1942) has nothing in common with the PPACA’s individual mandate. In fact, it underscores its unconstitutionality. In that case, the government did not mandate a farmer to grow wheat. It sought to regulate the wheat the farmer, by his own free will, chose to grow. Moreover, the government did not compel the consumer to purchase wheat, whereas in the instant case it compels the consumer to purchase insurance.
It’s impossible not to notice the difference between the ruling in Wickard v. Filburn and the case that the Obama administration is attempting to make supporting Obamacare.
LLF’s brief didn’t just demolish the Obama administration’s argument that the Necessary and Proper Clause gave the federal government the authority to impose Obamacare on people. It, too, taught an important history lesson:
The federal government also invokes the Necessary and Proper Clause to defend what is indeed an unprecedented national police power. The Necessary and Proper Clause, however, does not create any additional congressional power, nor does it expand any enumerated power. See Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 1986), Section 208. The individual mandate is not “a discrete and narrow exercise of authority over a small class of persons
already subject to…federal power.” United States v. Comstock, 130 S.Ct. 1949, 1968 (2010) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Accordingly, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not justify the individual mandate as Congress never has had the authority to compel private parties to engage in private economic activity based solely on the fact of living.
LLF’s brief highlights the Obama administration’s attempt to stretch the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause beyond anything the Founding Fathers would’ve recognized.
LLF’s research into these clauses is detailed and on point.
Here’s the text of the Necessary and Proper Clause:
The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
It’s apparent that the linchpin to this clause is whether the federal government was vested with the authority to impose its will on people or if there are limits on the federal government’s ability to impose its will on sovereign states and sovereign individuals.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments say there are limits. Here’s the text of the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Here’s the text of the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The point is that there’s a purpose behind these clauses and amendments. Each should be seen as applying to specific situations, not as catch-all clauses to be used to justify the federal government’s authority over the nation’s activities.
Thanks to this week’s Supreme Court hearings and LLF’s brief, average citizens are getting taught a great history lesson on the Constitution. How lucky are we for that?
Tom Daschle’s op-ed on the fate of O’Care is carefully crafted spin. Not that that’s surprising from a man with tax avoidance issues. In a sense, that should be expected. Here’s how Sen. Daschle frames the O’Care-SCOTUS debate:
With hearings starting Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to deliver a pivotal decision that will profoundly affect the future of our country. At stake is whether millions of Americans can have greater access to affordable health care coverage or whether the nation’s health care system will be plagued by uncertainty, imbalance and spiraling costs.
The justices are to rule on a critical element of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the now two-year old, groundbreaking health care reform law. They will determine whether Congress has the authority, under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, to mandate that every U.S. citizen must buy health insurance.
This is what happens when politicians stay in DC way too long. They start thinking that the American people can’t think for themselve, that they’re incapable of telling markets what they want.
The real debate isn’t over whether O’Care is the solution to our imagined health insurance crisis. It’s whether the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the authority to dictate its priorities onto the people it purports to serve.
Let’s cut to the chase. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t give the federal government that authority. Whatever the Supreme Court’s ruling, that’s the reality.
If the Supreme Court rules that O’Care is constitutional, it will have ruled that there’s nothing the federal government can’t force people to do. In the end, I suspect that’s why they’ll rule the individual and employer mandates unconstitutional.
Sen. Daschle couldn’t resist making this phony argument:
The only real question, in fact, is whether we have an individual mandate, one that requires individual responsibility, which I always thought was claimed as a conservative value, or we have a community mandate.
This isn’t a real question. It’s Sen. Daschle’s way of exposing his disdain for the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers would’ve cringed at the thought of the federal government getting involved in the most intimate parts of people’s lives.
When the federal government imposes its priorities on the people it’s supposed to represent, it loses legitimacy. The Tenth Amendment says that those things not outlined in the Ninth Amendment belong to “the states or the people.” President Obama and Sen. Daschle apparently don’t like that part of the Bill of Rights. Apparently, they’re willing to willfully ignore parts of the Constitution and its amendments.
That’s known as tyranny, which must be stopped ASAP.
Sen. Dashle implies that O’Care will fix all that ails the U.S. health insurance industry. It does nothing of the sort. It makes things worse by telling insurance companies what types of coverage must be included in insurance policies.
Here’s a glimpse at a total fabrication:
Congress was well aware of the experience of these states and knew that the insurance market reforms at the heart of improving coverage under this new act are inextricably linked to a mandate that requires all of us to take responsibility for our health.
If “Congress was well aware” that required a mandate to fix the health insurance industry, why did then-candidate Obama oppose individual and employer mandates?
The truth is that Sen. Daschle is spinning like a top. There isn’t a morsel of truth in his op-ed.
It isn’t a secret that Mitt Romney has an individual mandate crisis with health care. Now it appears as though he’s got a Tenth Amendment problem, too.
Romney is now attempting to defend the indefensible:
Requiring people to have health insurance is “conservative,” GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told MSNBC on Wednesday, but only if states do it.
The argument aims to improve Romney’s appeal to Republican voters concerned about the healthcare reform plan he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts in 2006. The Massachusetts law contains an individual mandate similar to the one in President Obama’s healthcare law, which conservatives despise.
“Personal responsibility,” Romney said, “is more conservative in my view than something being given out for free by government.”
“There were two options in my state,” he said. “One was to continue to allow people without insurance to go to the hospital and get free care, paid for by the government, paid for by taxpayers.”
“The best idea is to let each state craft their own solution because that’s, after all, the heart of conservatism: to follow the Constitution,” he said.
Mitt’s difficulties result from his selective reading of the Tenth Amendment. Here’s the language of the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I’d love hearing Gov. Romney’s justification for the state determining what’s best for families as opposed to families deciding what’s best for families.
Is Gov. Romney willing to argue that government-imposed responsibilities on families are preferable to families crafting their own solutions? Doesn’t that sound like Mitt thinks that government knows best?
Certainly, the Founding Fathers thought that the “government that governs least governs best.” Families, not cities, states or the feds, should be the governance of first resort.
It’s apparent that Mitt’s a convenient conservative when it fits his needs. It’s equally apparent that Mitt’s comfortable with government dictating to families what they must do.
That isn’t conservative. That’s liberalism at its worst.
It isn’t news that Ann Coulter loves hearing the sound of her voice more than she loves conservatism. It isn’t surprising that, as a member of the Agenda Media, she’s supportin Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, 2 of the 3 most liberal candidates in the race. You didn’t know that AC’s supporting RP? Thanks to Gateway Pundit Jim Hoft’s post, we can watch the video of her going full lunatic:
It’s disappointing that Coulter would give Mitt Romney a total pass on the BS that he’s peddling. That’s why it’s impossible for me to think of her as a serious person anymore.
Why hasn’t Ms. Coulter questioned Mitt’s premise that you have to work in the private sector to know how to create jobs? Is she willing to ignore facts? Apparently.
When President Reagan took office, he’d never run a company. During his administration, he put in place policies that gave companies the incentive to create 20,000,000 new jobs.
That information alone refutes Mitt’s schtick that he’s the only person with the ability to create jobs.
That’s before piling on the facts that Newt Gingrich, John Kasich and Bill Clinton didn’t have much experience running a small business or a corporation when they put in place policies that led to 20,000,000 new jobs getting created during Clinton’s term in office.
Doesn’t this information totally discredit Mitt’s sales pitch? As a matter of fact, it does. Why isn’t Ann Coulter criticizing Mitt for that sales pitch? I’ll bet we’ll never find out.
Another thing that the Agenda Media, Ms. Coulter included, hasn’t talked about or investigated is the fact that Mitt’s been rescuing the Olympics, running for governor or running for president since February, 1999.
Since leaving Bain Capital, he’s hired John Holdren, now President Obama’s Science Czar, to advise him on global warming. That’s a stunning success for the greenies because Mitt listened to Holdren in signing an executive order putting the strictest limitations on CO2 emissions in the northeastern states.
Mitt wasn’t satisfied that he’d just imposed millions of dollars of costs on Massachusetts energy companies. Again, he took Holdren’s advice in signing an executive order imposing price controls on Massachusetts energy companies.
Perhaps Ms. Coulter or the rest of the Agenda Media can explain what capitalist principle Mitt followed in imposing price controls on companies. That might happen but I doubt it. I’m betting Lucifer will hand out skates before Ms. Coulter explains what capitalist principle led Mitt to impose price controls on people.
Since leaving the private sector, Mitt signed Romneycare into law, a law that he’s still defending. Mitt’s clung tightly to his Tenth Amendment argument.
It’s a phony argument that’s actually laughable. Has anyone beside me said that government doesn’t have the authority to tell private citizens that they have to buy anything as a condition of their existence? That’s true whether it’s the federal, state or local government attempting to impose the purchase.
The only time they have the right to impose our purchasing a product is if we choose to engage in a privilege. Driving is one such instance.
Somehow, Ms. Coulter’s conservative principles appear to have left for a Christmas vacation. When they’ll return is anyone’s guess. In fact, it’s questionable that they’ll ever return.
It’s worth noting that Mitt didn’t sign the CO2 limits executive order in 2003. Mitt didn’t sign Romneycare into law in 2004. Mitt signed the CO2 executive order and the price controls executive order in December, 2005. Mitt signed Romneycare into law in April, 2006.
That’s awful enough but it’s worse than that. Mitt’s still defending Romneycare even though he’s admitted that it doesn’t do a thing to lower health care costs.
Mitt said Saturday that he’s the ideal TEA Party candidate. That’s BS. Mitt isn’t a conservative. He’s a liberal. I can’t explain why Ann Coulter or the rest of the Agenda Media isn’t exposing him as such.
It’s time that conservatives started ignorning Mitt. It’s time they started ignoring AC, too. They aren’t intellectually honest and they certainly aren’t principled conservatives.
Technorati: Cult of Personality, Ann Coulter, Agenda Media, Media Bias, Mitt Romney, Romneycare, Price Controls, CO2 Emissions, John Holdren, Liberalism, Reagan, Newt Gingrich, John Kasich, Capitalism, Job Creation, GDP, Conservatism, TEA Party, GOP, Election 2012
NYTimes editor Bill Keller’s editorial isn’t disappointing. It’s what I expect from a NY elitist who couldn’t find America’s political mainstream with a GPS and an unlimited supply of gas for his car.
First, he throws in a quote from another clueless GOP operative:
“Ronald Reagan couldn’t get past first base in today’s environment,” said one Texas Republican operative who has turned despondent about the party’s drift.
Remember Ed Rollins saying that Reaganite conservatism was dead in 2008? In 2010, alot of Reagan admirers helped produce the biggest midterm landslide since Reagan was a young aspiring actor. Reaganite conservatism won’t die because it’s anchored in liberty, personal responsibility and accountability.
Aren’t those are the principles that are the cornerstones of the TEA Party movement?
Then Mr. Keller attacks the ‘Not Romney candidate’:
Perry brings to the campaign, besides great posture and polished good looks, an economic record that looks like a vindication of Tea Party dogma, never mind that it was made possible by a quarter of America’s known oil reserves, a lot of low-wage immigrants, a reluctance to waste government money on frills like education and health care, and a tax and regulatory environment out of the Wild West.
On paper, and, for all I know, in his heart, Perry is the most ardent of Tea Party ideologues. His book, “Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America From Washington,” is a manifesto of 10th Amendment hyperfederalism and radical individualism, assailing the constitutional basis of Social Security, the income tax, the Federal Reserve, consumer protection, and “federal laws regulating the environment, regulating guns, protecting civil rights, establishing the massive programs and Medicare and Medicaid, creating national minimum wage laws, establishing national labor laws,” and so on.
Now there’s a movement. A “10th Amendment hyperfederalism and radical individualism.” Sounds ferocious, doesn’t it? Being particularly steadfast on 10th Amendment issues isn’t a vice; it’s a virtue. Except in Mr. Keller’s mind. Then it’s a dangerous form of radicalism.
Similarly, radical individualism isn’t radical except with collectivists like Mr. Keller and adherents from the upper east side of Manhattan.
The title of Mr. Keller’s op-ed is “Is the Tea Party Over?” The short answer is exceptionally short: No. The slightly abridged version is a bit longer: Only a liberal elitist would think the TEA Party’s enthusiasm is shrinking.
Mr. Keller thinks that not having settled on a candidate already is a sign that the TEA Party is diminishing. It doesn’t prove that at all. It’s proof that TEA Party activists are being wise presidential shoppers. They aren’t buying the first conservative-sounding schtick they hear.
They’re intent on not settling for I-checked-all-the-right-boxes candidate. They’re intent on getting the real deal, the person who best fits the most TEA Party attributes. That necessarily includes fighting for the TEA Party’s principles. (There’s that hyperfederalist thing again.)
Rather than sounding like a movement who’s losing its intensity, it sounds more like a movement that’s matured, stayed steadfast to constitutional principles while making sound real-world decisions.
The day after Election Day, 2012, I’ll probably write a post asking Mr. Keller if he thinks the TEA Party is dead. I’m confident he won’t think, much to his chagrin, the TEA Party is dead. He’ll only wish it was.
BTW, a great gauge of whether TEA Party principles are waning is counting how many people utter the sentence “I wish the election was tomorrow” or a variant thereof.
After downloading Newt’s 21st Century Contract With America, I downloaded Mitt’s 59-point plan to compare and contrast the plans. Stark isn’t vivid enough an adjective to describe the differences between the plans.
Newt’s plan focuses solely on solutions to move America forward in the 21st Century. Mitt’s mix of boilerplate Republican solutions (nothing new there) with frequent criticisms of President Obama is as much lengthy anti-Obama screed as it is serious economic policy statement.
Here’s part of Mitt’s regulation reform plan:
Mitt Romney will approach regulation from a completely different angle. He sees the need or basic change. Regulatory costs must be treated like other costs: that is, firm limits must be established for them. An agency may be able to conceive of ten diferent regulations, each imposing costs of $10 billion while producing at least as much in social benefit. Moving forward might sound likea great idea to the typical regulator. But imposing those regulations, no matter what the social benefits, has a similar effect to raising taxes by $100 billion.
Regulatory costs need to be treated like the very real costs they are. A Romney administration will act swiftly to tear down the vast edifice of regulations the Obama administration has imposed on the economy. It will also seek to make structural changes to the federal bureaucracy that ensure economic growth remains front and center when regulatory decisions are made.
Compare that with Newt’s plans for the EPA:
We must also replace the EPA, which pursues an anti-jobs agenda the economy simply cannot sustain. A pro-growth Environmental Solutions Agency in its place will operate on the premise that most environmental problems can and should be solved by states and local communities. Rather than emphasizing centralization and regulation, it would emphasize coordination with states and local communities, the sharing of best practices, and focus on incentives for new solutions, research and technologies.
Nowhere in Mitt’s plan does he contemplate the notion that the federal government should turn regulation-making to the states. That idea is the centerpiece of Newt’s EPA reform.
While regulatory relief of any type is welcomed, real relief of the type that Newt’s proposing is appealing because it’s as energetic as it is thoughtful.
As president, Romney will press for an immediate reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 percent. He will also explore the possibility of coupling further rate reductions with measures that broaden the income base and simplify the rules to ensure that American businesses will always be competitive in the global economy.
That’s pretty timid compared with Newt’s plan:
Reduce the Corporate Tax to 12.5%. Reducing the corporate income tax, currently the second highest in the developed world, will make America the number one destination in the world for foreign investment and the millions of jobs that will accompany this designation. Most of the $1.4 trillion in profits locked up overseas by the current 35% tax rate will come home to be reinvested and distributed at a 12.5% rate.
Any bets on whether corporations would prefer a 12.5% tax rate immediately or a 25% rate immediately, with a possibility of a somewhat lower rate later on? I’m betting that corporations would jump at the opportunity of a 12.5% rate within a year after Newt is inaugurated.
If the money corporations hid overseas would be repatriated at a 25% rate, they’d certainly jump off the foreign sidelines with a 12.5% corporate tax rate.
Where capital goes, jobs follow shortly thereafter. Based on that consideration alone, it’s a safe bet that Newt’s plan would trigger more robust job and economic growth than Mitt’s plan.
The question GOP voters must ask themselves is this: why settle for Mitt’s plan when we can have Newt’s plan? Here’s another question GOP voters should ask: Would you be better off 4 years from now with Mitt’s plan or with Newt’s?
Elections are about the future just like they’re a referendum on the past. President Obama’s plans have failed miserably. They must be vanquished ASAP. Newt’s plans have been tried before. They produced 11,000,000 new jobs and 4 surpluses in 4 years.
Why settle for Mitt’s plan, which undoubtedly would be an improvement over President Obama’s policies, when Newt’s plan would create more robust job growth?
That just isn’t a difficult decision.