Wednesday, February 17

Peter, Paul and Barry: A Contrast in Economic Policy Visions

Interesting column about Paul Ryan and the Republicans.
"Over the past week, the White House began trying something new: changing the subject from their own proposals to those of Congressional Republicans. This is a marked departure from the past several months, during which the White House alleged repeatedly – and wrongly – that Republicans were obstructing necessary legislation with no alternatives of their own. But now, the White House has decided it is time to acknowledge that Republicans have been offering ideas – and to attack them."
Understandable, the democrats' plans don't do anything to promote freedom or prosperity, and rather than talk about their own horrible, constricting, unfounded policies, they've decided to attack those with real ideas.
"The contest between the Ryan and Orszag visions for Social Security is the fundamental contest between constraining our spending appetites and raising taxes to fuel persistently higher costs."
Perfect quote. Code words for Conservative vs. Liberal. People vs. Bureaucracy. Freedom vs. Constraint.

Tuesday, February 9

Congressman Paul Ryan Making Waves With Roadmap

GOP Rep. Paul Ryan tackles Obama's path to deficit disaster

By Michael Gerson
The Washington Post

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

The new era of Democratic bipartisanship, like cut flowers in a vase, wilted in less than a week.

During his question time at the House Republican retreat, President Obama elevated congressman and budget expert Paul Ryan as a "sincere guy" whose budget blueprint -- which, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), eventually achieves a balanced budget -- has "some ideas in there that I would agree with." Days later, Democratic legislators held a conference call to lambaste Ryan's plan as a vicious, voucherizing, privatizing assault on Social Security, Medicare and every non-millionaire American. Progressive advocacy groups and liberal bloggers joined the jeering in practiced harmony.

The attack "came out of the Democratic National Committee, and that is the White House," Ryan told me recently, sounding both disappointed and unsurprised. On the deficit, Obama's outreach to Republicans has been a ploy, which is to say, a deception. Once again, a president so impressed by his own idealism has become the nation's main manufacturer of public cynicism.

To Ryan, the motivations of Democratic leaders are transparent. "They had an ugly week of budget news. They are precipitating a debt crisis, with deficits that get up to 85 percent of GDP and never get to a sustainable level. They are flirting with economic disaster." So they are attempting some "misdirection," calling attention to Ryan's recently updated budget road map (click here for Roadmap 2.0) -- first unveiled two years ago (click here for the 2008 Roadmap) -- which proposes difficult entitlement reforms. When all else fails, change the subject to Republican heartlessness.

From a political perspective, Democratic leaders are right to single out Ryan for unkind attention. He is among their greatest long-term threats. He possesses the appeal of a young Jack Kemp (for whom both Ryan and I once worked). Like Kemp, Ryan is aggressively likable, crackling with ideas and shockingly sincere.

But unlike Kemp -- who didn't give a rip for deficits, being focused exclusively on economic growth -- Ryan is the cheerful prophet of deficit doom. "For the first generation of supply-siders," he explains, "the fiscal balance sheet was not as bad. The second generation of supply-siders needs to be just as concerned about debt and deficits. They are the greatest threats to economic growth today."

Fiscal Obamaism is not just a temporary, Keynesian, countercyclical spike in spending; it is deficits to infinity and beyond. "It is the interest that kills you," Ryan says. In a few weeks, he expects the CBO to report that, in the 10th year of Obama's budget, the federal government will "spend nearly a trillion dollars a year, just on interest! This traps us as a country. Inflation will wipe out savings and hurt people on fixed incomes. A plunging dollar will make goods more expensive. High tax rates will undermine economic growth. It is the path of national decline."

But unlike other deficit hawks, Ryan courageously -- some would say foolhardily -- presents his own alternative. His budget road map offers many proposals, but one big vision. Over time, Ryan concentrates government spending on the poor through means-tested programs, patching holes in the safety net while making entitlements more sustainable. He saves money by providing the middle class with defined-contribution benefits -- private retirement accounts and health vouchers -- that are more portable but less generous in the long run. And he expects a growing economy, liberated from debt and inflation, to provide more real gains for middle-class citizens than they lose from lower government benefits. Ryanism is not only a technical solution to endless deficits; it represents an alternative political philosophy.

For decades, culminating in the Obama health reform proposal, Democrats have attempted to build a political constituency for the welfare state by expanding its provisions to larger and larger portions of the middle class. Ryan proposes a federal system that focuses on helping the poor, while encouraging the middle class to take more personal responsibility in a dynamic economy. It is the appeal of security vs. the appeal of independence and enterprise.

Both sides of this debate make serious arguments, rooted in differing visions of justice and freedom. But the advocates of security, including Obama, have a serious problem: They are on a path to economic ruin.

In his Kemp-like way, Ryan manages to find a bright side. "The way I look at it, we were sleepwalking down this path anyway. The Democratic overreach woke people up. It was a splash of cold water in the face of every voter. Now we have a new, more serious conversation. And I'm not going to back down."

mgerson@globalengage.org

Saturday, February 6

The WSJ This Weekend

Opening up the Weekend Edition of the WSJ today was quite an experience. There were many great articles. I will highlight a few here.

For GOP, No Experience Is No Problem: link

Peggy Noonan: Question Time Isn't The Answer: link

Interesting proposals here. Noonan is right, this won't happen here, but something that creates a better dialog is needed.

This might tend to produce fewer omnibus bills. "You expect me to know and talk about what's in that? It's 2,000 pages! Cut it down to 20 and give it a new name."

Opinions Split on Job Creation: link

Pat Moynihan's Tax Lessons for the States: link

If you've ever read and appreciated Moynihan's late 60's book Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding, you'll appreciate this artlce.

'A Wasted Opportunity'
WellPoint's CEO on ObamaCare's mistakes and how to pick up the political pieces.: link

It's hard to see how WellPoint could be to blame for surging health spending, Mrs. Braly says, when 85 cents out of every premium dollar or more "is paid out in the actual cost of care, doctors, hospitals, suppliers, drugs, devices." Confiscating the 2009 profits of the entire insurance industry would pay for two days of U.S. health care.

FedEx CEO Frederick W. Smith: One Simple Way To Create Jobs: link

Wednesday, January 27

Saturday, January 9

Reagan Revolution Essay Contest

Recently, Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), posted a challenge on their Facebook page, an essay contest. The objective:
Write an essay describing your thoughts about the future of the conservative/libertarian movement. Is the Reagan revolution over? If so, with the end of the Reagan revolution, where do we go now? Over the past 30 years, the conservative movement has elected presidents and majorities in both houses of congress, but we have seen an unprecedented growth in government spending, increased abortions rights, gun laws, and liberalization of all social issues. What is the solution for 2010 and beyond? Your essay should not exceed 500 words.
For the fun of it (yes, I find this fun), I wrote just shy of 500 words with my thoughts. I am posting my essay below.

Recently, I completed Craig Shirley's mammoth work on Reagan's 1980 campaign, Rendezvous With Destiny. The book contains over 600 pages of writing, and it's well over 700 pages when you include bibliography and resource notes. I think trying to sum up anything regarding Ronald Reagan and the Revolution he started in as few as 500 words is completely impossible. All one can do is try to get close by summing up key themes, key ideas. I tried to do this with my writing. I'm interested in your thoughts.

THE ESSAY

The Reagan Revolution is NOT over. The premise of the first part of the question is correct, there was and is an ongoing Revolution started by Reagan, and it has yet to end or be completed.

In 1980, Reagan campaigned on a simple theme, boiled down to five words: Family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom. In those five words laid the promise of a great nation and the core of what makes her people tick.

The heirs of the Revolution stopped talking WITH America and instead started speaking AT America. We live in the Web 2.0 world, where conversations take place and the flow of information is up and down, left and right. We no longer live in the world where being talked AT is the way to share with people the greatness of America.

Our side must get back to the Reagan model. Go back and study Reagan. Reagan believed what he said, he genuinely loved America and he believed in her people. His background in radio and movies helped him communicate, it was easy for him to stand in front of the American people and tell them what he was seeing and what he thought about it. Reagan was not born “The Great Communicator”, Reagan evolved into that role.

We need statesmen today who believe in the American people and who can communicate policies that assist the American people in achieving the American dream, rather than policies that hinder the people’s ability to achieve greatness. To move forward in 2010 and beyond, we must have an entire movement, not just one leader, but an entire movement that will look to those five words: Family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom. That movement must focus on these ideals, going back to Reagan’s axiom when he called us a “community of shared values”.

When our movement has elected presidents or both houses of congress, we have become too timid, too afraid to over step for fear of angering the American people. Instead, if we were following the Reagan model, we would never stop talking with the American people, and the support of the people would be enough to achieve the successes we want based on the principles that unite us as Americans. We must talk in positive ways about the things that matter most to the American people.

The Reagan Revolution is not over. Those that will rise to the challenge will carry the mantle forward and continue the Revolution that Reagan started. There was a reason why the Revolution began, there was a need for it, there was a place in the heart of the American people for such an occurrence. That place in the heart of America is still there. We can get back to it with courage and resilience to do what is right, and with focus on those five words: Family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom. Let’s continue the Reagan Revolution, and as Reagan once did, let’s have a “conversation with America” again.

Sunday, August 30

Dick Cheney Returns, Again

Just when I thought my Sunday was going to be boring, even after my Dunkin Donuts coffee, Vice President Dick Cheney shows up on Fox News Sunday and drops the hammer, again, on the left and in specific, on Herr Obama.


Wow, what an interview that was.


When asked about his opinion of Obama, Dick Cheney unleashed: “I wasn’t a fan of his when he got elected, and my views haven’t changed any. I have serious doubts about his policies, serious doubts especially about the extent to which he understands and is prepared to do what needs to be done to defend the nation.” Ouch.


Politico has a good recap of the interview.


"The thing I keep coming back to time and time again, Chris, is the fact that we've gone for eight years without another attack," Cheney said. "Now, how do you explain that? The critics don't have any solution for that. They can criticize our policies, our way of doing business, but the results speak for themselves."


He added: "It was good policy. It was properly carried out. It worked very, very well.”


Asked if he thinks "Democrats are soft on national security," Cheney replied: "I do."


FoxNews.com recaps the interview as well.


RealClearPolitics.com has 4 minutes of the video.


If you're a serious addict, Real Clear Politics has posted the transcript of the interview here.


Vice President Cheney's book is not due to be released until 2011, I'm going to have a tough time waiting that long.

Saturday, July 25

"All Honor to Jefferson"

From the May/June 2009 issue of Imprimis, published free by Hillsdale College
Jean Yarbrough

"All Honor to Jefferson"

JEAN YARBROUGH is professor of government and Gary M. Pendy, Sr. Professor of Social Sciences at Bowdoin College. She received her B.A. at Cedar Crest College and her M.A. and Ph.D. at the New School for Social Research. The author of American Virtues: Thomas Jefferson on the Character of a Free People and editor of The Essential Jefferson, she is currently completing a study of Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive critique of the Founders.

The following address was delivered at Hillsdale College on April 16, 2009, at the dedication of a statue of Thomas Jefferson by Hillsdale College Associate Professor of Art Anthony Frudakis.

IT IS one of the wonders of the modern political world that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Unaware that the “Sage of Monticello” had died earlier in the day, the crusty Adams, as he felt his own life slipping away, uttered his last words, “Thomas Jefferson still lives.” And so he does.

Today, as we dedicate this marvelous statue of our third President, and place him in the company of George Washington, Winston Churchill, and Margaret Thatcher on Hillsdale’s Liberty Walk, soon to be joined by Abraham Lincoln, it is fitting to reflect on what of Thomas Jefferson still lives. What is it that we honor him for here today?

Without question, pride of place must go to Jefferson as the author of the Declaration of Independence. That document established Jefferson as one of America’s great political poets, second only to Abraham Lincoln. And fittingly, it was Lincoln himself who recognized the signal importance of its first two paragraphs when he wrote: “All honor to Jefferson—to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times,” where it continues to stand as “a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.”

That abstract truth, of course, was that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” It is surely a sign of our times that so many Americans no longer know what these words mean, or what their signal importance has been to peoples around the world. The one thing they are certain of, however, is that Jefferson was a hypocrite. How could he assert that all men were created equal and yet own slaves? What these critics fail to notice is that this is precisely what makes Jefferson’s statement so remarkable. Under no necessity for doing so, he penned the immortal words that would ultimately be invoked to put the institution of slavery on the road to extinction. His own draft of the Declaration was even stronger. In it, he made it clear that blacks were human and that slavery was a moral abomination and a blot upon the honor of his country.

Jefferson was serving as Minister in Paris while the Constitution was being drafted, and played no direct part in framing it. But he did make known his objections, the most important being the omission of a Bill of Rights. After the Constitution was ratified, he returned to the United States to serve as Secretary of State in the Washington administration. In and out of government in the 1790s, he challenged Hamilton’s expansive views of federal power, warning against a mounting federal debt, a growing patronage machine, and what he considered dangerous monarchical pretensions.

In the tumultuous contest for the presidency in 1800, Jefferson presided over the first peaceful transition of power in modern history, assuring those he had defeated that they too had rights that the majority was bound to respect. His observation, “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists,” established a standard toward which every incoming administration continues to strive.

As president of the United States, Jefferson sought to rally the country around the principles of limited government. His First Inaugural Address reminded his fellow citizens that their happiness and prosperity rested upon a “wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” This, he thought, was “the sum of good government” and all that was “necessary to close the circle of our felicities.” Although Jefferson had omitted property from the inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration, he strongly defended private property because it encouraged industry and liberality—and, most importantly, because he thought it just that each individual enjoy the equal right to the fruits of his labor.

From these political principles, Jefferson never wavered. Writing in 1816, he once again insisted that the tasks of a liberal republic were few: government should restrain individuals from encroaching on the equal rights of others, compel them to contribute to the necessities of society, and require them to submit their disputes to an impartial judge. “When the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions.”

At the same time, Jefferson believed that constitutions must keep pace with the times. If the people wished to alter their frame of government, say, to fund public improvements or education, they were free to do so. But they should do so by constitutional amendment and not by allowing their representatives to construe the powers of government broadly. He particularly objected to the Court’s sitting in judgment on the powers of the legislative and executive branches, or acting as an umpire between the states and the federal government. To cede to the judiciary this authority, he believed, would render the Constitution a “ball of wax” in the hands of federal judges. In his battles with Chief Justice John Marshall, he defended the principle of coordinate construction, as Lincoln (and almost every strong president since then) did after him, arguing that each branch of government must determine for itself the constitutionality of its acts.

After his retirement from politics, Jefferson returned to Monticello, where he continued to think about the meaning and requirements of republican government. Republicanism, he was convinced, was more than just a set of institutional arrangements; at bottom, it depended upon the character of the people. To keep alive this civic spirit, he championed public education for both boys and girls, with the most talented boys going on at public expense all the way through college. He envisioned the University of Virginia, to which he devoted the last years of his life, as a temple that would keep alive the “vestal flame” of republicanism and train men for public service. And here, I cannot help but notice how the recent renovations and additions to the Hillsdale campus seem to take their inspiration from Mr. Jefferson’s university, paying graceful homage to an architecture of democracy that inspires and ennobles.

As Jefferson understood it, education had a distinctly political mission, beginning at the elementary level: schools were to form citizens who understood their rights and duties, who knew how earlier free societies had risen to greatness, and by what errors and vices they had declined. Knowing was not enough, however. Jefferson also believed that citizens must have the opportunity to act. Anticipating Tocqueville, Jefferson admired the strength of the New England townships and sought to adapt them to Virginia. The wards, as he called them, would allow citizens to have a say on those matters most interesting to them, such as the education of their children and the protection of their property. If ever they became too dispirited to care about these things, republican government could not survive.

The wards were certainly not the greatest of Jefferson’s contributions to the natural rights republic—that honor must be awarded to the Declaration—but they were his most original. Instead of consolidating power or attempting to forge a general will, Jefferson went in the opposite direction, “dividing and sub-dividing” political power, while multiplying the number of interests and views that could be heard. He saw these units of local self-government as a way of bringing the large republic within the reach of citizens and so keeping alive the spirit of republicanism so vital to its preservation. And in this day and age, when the federal government seems to intrude on every aspect of our daily lives, and people feel powerless over matters of most interest to them, can we doubt that he was right?
For this insight, too, let us echo Lincoln: “All honor to Jefferson”!

Blogger note: In my quest for better understanding the founders and also understanding the story of America, I thought the highlighted portion of this speech was especially profound. In the age of Nobama, is it ever again possible to return to the days of decisions being made at the local level.